04-17-2011, 08:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2011, 08:22 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='karlmera' timestamp='1303068127' post='7702']
Paid 2200€. In all areas away from 1:4.
[/quote]
It is not clear to me what you mean with "in all areas".
Did you shoot at 1:4? At what aperture (I am sure not f2?) Which format? How did you focus? Sharpness, bokeh, contrast, CA? Flat subject or 3D? And which 60mm?
Obviously, a normal macro lens is more versatile, with a focussing path and AF. The 55mm f2 will only excel in specific uses/conditions, of course
Just wanting information from you, on what you used it for and how, not criticizing.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303071712' post='7703']
It is not clear to me what you mean with "in all areas".
Did you shoot at 1:4? At what aperture (I am sure not f2?) Which format? How did you focus? Sharpness, bokeh, contrast, CA? Flat subject or 3D? And which 60mm?
Obviously, a normal macro lens is more versatile, with a focussing path and AF. The 55mm f2 will only excel in specific uses/conditions, of course
Just wanting information from you, on what you used it for and how, not criticizing.
[/quote]
I shot at 1:3(f2), 1:4 is not possible with a dslr. But 1:1 is bad, and also reversed. My conclusion is that the lens would be best usable only at 1:4 unreversed.
I wrote that the 60mm AF-S is better.
I used it on a D300.
[quote name='karlmera' timestamp='1303068127' post='7702']
Paid 2200€. [/quote]
Mama mia! Last time I paid that sum of money I bought the 24/3.5 II. I hope I'll find it more useful than you found yours.
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1303121386' post='7719']
Mama mia! Last time I paid that sum of money I bought the 24/3.5 II. I hope I'll find it more useful than you found yours.
[/quote]
100%!!
[quote name='karlmera' timestamp='1303111496' post='7711']
I shot at 1:3(f2), 1:4 is not possible with a dslr. But 1:1 is bad, and also reversed. My conclusion is that the lens would be best usable only at 1:4 unreversed.
I wrote that the 60mm AF-S is better.
I used it on a D300.
[/quote]
Sorry, for some weird reason I missed the "AF-S", so I wondered if it was the old or the new 60mm.
1:4 should about be possible on my EOS with the right thin adapter. The results I am getting at 1:2.5 are very good in the center, with flat subjects the sharpness wide open is stunning, but I do see some "coma" at the borders so I can imagine that 1:1 will stretch the optics a bit too much.
It should be good reversed at around 4:1, but I do not have a reversal ring/adapter yet.
I find the bokeh quite agreeable too.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303133178' post='7726']
Sorry, for some weird reason I missed the "AF-S", so I wondered if it was the old or the new 60mm.
1:4 should about be possible on my EOS with the right thin adapter. The results I am getting at 1:2.5 are very good in the center, with flat subjects the sharpness wide open is stunning, but I do see some "coma" at the borders so I can imagine that 1:1 will stretch the optics a bit too much.
It should be good reversed at around 4:1, but I do not have a reversal ring/adapter yet.
I find the bokeh quite agreeable too.
[/quote]
It is very soft at 4:1 and f/2, and has CAs. At 1:2 there are also CAs, and the field curvature gets strong.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303133178' post='7726']
Sorry, for some weird reason I missed the "AF-S", so I wondered if it was the old or the new 60mm.
1:4 should about be possible on my EOS with the right thin adapter. The results I am getting at 1:2.5 are very good in the center, with flat subjects the sharpness wide open is stunning, but I do see some "coma" at the borders so I can imagine that 1:1 will stretch the optics a bit too much.
It should be good reversed at around 4:1, but I do not have a reversal ring/adapter yet.
I find the bokeh quite agreeable too.
[/quote]
The lens has a back focal distance of 28,8mm and the EOS has 44mm FFD. Nikon has 46,5mm FFD an gets 1:3. But that is OK.
[quote name='karlmera' timestamp='1303148903' post='7741']
The lens has a back focal distance of 28,8mm and the EOS has 44mm FFD. Nikon has 46,5mm FFD an gets 1:3. But that is OK.
[/quote]
The lens actually has a flange distance of 43mm. I think you are referring to the flange distance of standard LSM (M39). But this is no standard LSM lens, only the M39 thread is similar.
So.. with a thin enough adapter, you could actually get very close to 1:4 on EF mount. One has to make sure that the mirror clears the back of the lens though, so 1:4 on a full frame camera may be a problem. But APS-C should be fine.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303150919' post='7743']
The lens actually has a flange distance of 43mm. I think you are referring to the flange distance of standard LSM (M39). But this is no standard LSM lens, only the M39 thread is similar.
So.. with a thin enough adapter, you could actually get very close to 1:4 on EF mount. One has to make sure that the mirror clears the back of the lens though, so 1:4 on a full frame camera may be a problem. But APS-C should be fine.
[/quote]
I mean that the FFD of a Nikon Fx and DX is the same 46,5mm. And EOS always has 44,0. And 1:4 is always 1:4, FX or DX. I think you will get 1:3,3 or so but not 1:4. I am looking forward to your results.
04-19-2011, 08:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2011, 08:30 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='karlmera' timestamp='1303148271' post='7740']
It is very soft at 4:1 and f/2, and has CAs. At 1:2 there are also CAs, and the field curvature gets strong.
[/quote]
There is no field curvature worth mentioning (tested it just now). I think you may confuse some coma like effect, or more probably astigmatism, with field curvature?
Your 60mm AF-S has quite strong CA, just your camera is hiding it. Try a 3rd party RAW convertor to see how it really performs. The still quite low CA from the 55mm f2 can also be easily reigned in in a RAW convertor that allows you to correct CA, or in photoshop (in for instance the lens correction filter).
|
