[amitk26]

Joe it depends on what kind of macro work you want to do.
Mostly macro shots are done mounted on tripod so size is not a concern.

If you want lightweight manual macro look for Nikkor 55 f 2.8.
This lens is smaller then any of e mount or even micro 4/3 50mm lens.

Also Tamron 90 mm lens is surprisingly light weight lens

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitk26

If you want lightweight manual macro look for Nikkor 55 f 2.8.
This lens is smaller then any of e mount or even micro 4/3 50mm lens.

Smaller than which m4/3 50mm lens?

[joe1980]

Floral, insects, eyes are some of the ideas that I have for Macro work. I had a look at the Tamron 90mm and I feel it is a bit lengthier, but I like the lens as such. I haven't decided on it as I have decided to wait for a couple more months to see if there is a native macro E-mount lens announcement. There is one from Zeiss, the 50mm, but that is not enough for me. I would need at least 85mm for the kind of Macro work that I would do.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Smaller than which m4/3 50mm lens?

Smaller then one and only rough equivelent macro focal length available that is olympus 60mm macro ( sorry not 50mm as I wrote before)
Manual Nikkor 55mm f2.8 is just 70mm in height with filter size 52mm and weight 290gm.

Olmpus 60mm macro is 82mm in height and 56mm in width. Weight is bit less at 185gm as old glasses were heavier.

http://www.photozone.de/m43/781-oly6028


I used macro nikkor more then a year back during sunday photowalk at kkhalli lake so it was fading memory but I tend to assign more weightage to height then 100gm weight.

[joe1980]

Friends, I have a question. Lets say, you take a picture (Raw or JPEG), import them in Lightroom and look at the picture's Fit, Fill, 1:1 and 3:1. No matter how good I manage to get the picture taken, when I go 3:1, I start seeing the pixels and the image is sort of blurry even at my perfectly focused areas. Is this the same with you all or do you see it better when you do a 3:1 view in Lightroom.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by joe1980

Friends, I have a question. Lets say, you take a picture (Raw or JPEG), import them in Lightroom and look at the picture's Fit, Fill, 1:1 and 3:1. No matter how good I manage to get the picture taken, when I go 3:1, I start seeing the pixels and the image is sort of blurry even at my perfectly focused areas. Is this the same with you all or do you see it better when you do a 3:1 view in Lightroom.

What is 3:1 here? does it mean 300% view ? ( sorry I do not use light-room)

If yes then it depends on Camera body on how many pixels are there to give you non pixellated view.
At 300% perhaps only 36MP Nikon D800 can give non pixelleated image but I am not too sure about that though.

But if you were asking something else may be elaborating question a bit more will help.

[joe1980]

Originally Posted by amitk26

What is 3:1 here? does it mean 300% view ? ( sorry I do not use light-room)

If yes then it depends on Camera body on how many pixels are there to give you non pixellated view.
At 300% perhaps only 36MP Nikon D800 can give non pixelleated image but I am not too sure about that though.

But if you were asking something else may be elaborating question a bit more will help.

From your post, I get to understand the figures now. Yes, a 1:1 is a 100% crop and a 3:1 is a 300% crop. When I do a 300% crop, I see the pixels ugly formation to make up the picture from my NEX 6 and the 50mm f1.8 lens.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Smaller then one and only rough equivelent macro focal length available that is olympus 60mm macro ( sorry not 50mm as I wrote before)
Manual Nikkor 55mm f2.8 is just 70mm in height with filter size 52mm and weight 290gm.

The Nikkor 55mm f2.8 has effective FL of 82.5mm on NEX, the closest m4/3 macro lens to that FL is Panasonic 45mm F2.8, whose effective FL is 90mm. The 60mm would give 120mm. The Pany 45mm is shorter and lighter than Nikkor 55mm.

[joe1980]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

And the big announcement was the release of E-P5. The same 5-axis IS as OM-D, but what's better is the max shutter speed of 1/8000 and focus peaking. Now, I am just praying that they bring focus peaking (via firmware update) to the OM-D as well. If they do, I am set for a long time to come.

EDIT: Ming Thein's preview: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/10/oiympus-pen-e-p5/

Focus peaking is really a benefit. As soon as I learned about it, I shoot only in the DMF mode which has focus peaking enabled by default. Since using this, it is very rare that I loose focus on my subject.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Samurai

The Nikkor 55mm f2.8 has effective FL of 82.5mm on NEX, the closest m4/3 macro lens to that FL is Panasonic 45mm F2.8, whose effective FL is 90mm. The 60mm would give 120mm. The Pany 45mm is shorter and lighter than Nikkor 55mm.

But that is not macro lens so cant be compared.
For macros fov is not that important parameter.
Getting to 1:1 and working distance is what matters.
Since he is looking for a macro lens which can be used on nex I made that suggestion

Nikkor 55 f2.8 is most lightweight and compact macro compared to that kiron/liester A dien/vivitar series 1 as suggested here are monsters.

At one point I used to have 4 macro lenses in my arsenal but now I have cut down to 2
Till now I have used following macros and here is my take on them

1. Vivitar Series 1 90 mm (thinking if I should sell or not)
Wonderful lens but heavy looks very funny on EPL but ok on canon.
Can be used on NEx and micro 4/3
2. Tamron SP 90 ( sold) : sharp but poor build quality AF motor slow and noisy.
Best used as manual lens. Old adaptall mount versions can be used on nex as in new versions there is no aperture ring.

3. Canon 100 F2.8 USM
No complaints most people say AF is not much useful in macro but this lens proves it wrong.
AF is fast only thing that can better it is IS L version.
Worth spending money only if you use canon body
Aperture is electronically controlled.

4. Nikkor 55 f2.8

Compact sharp and lightweight manual lens.


There are few more manual macro in similar size like mc volna but price and availability is a question.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitk26

But that is not macro lens so cant be compared.
For macros fov is not that important parameter.
Getting to 1:1 and working distance is what matters.

Why do you feel it is not a macro lens?

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microf...f028_panasonic

The term macro is part of the lens name, and it has 1:1 magnification, just like the Zuiko 60mm.

Full name of the lens is Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm/F2.8

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why do you feel it is not a macro lens?

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microf...f028_panasonic

The term macro is part of the lens name, and it has 1:1 magnification, just like the Zuiko 60mm.

Full name of the lens is Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm/F2.8

Ohh I missed reading "Pana" and mentally fitted in Olympus 45 when I wrote that sorry for that I was not aware of this lens

But can it be used on NEX which OP wants ? I think NEX focal plane to flange distance is more then micro 4/3 but I may be wrong and looks that aperture is electronically controlled.

But since we were discussing size just digged it up. It is 62.5 X 63 mm and 225gm so 7.5mm smaller then Nikkor and 65 gms lighter.

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--fou...90-leica_45_28

For micro 4/3 users I think 60mm will give more working distance then 45mm at 1:1

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by joe1980

Focus peaking is really a benefit. As soon as I learned about it, I shoot only in the DMF mode which has focus peaking enabled by default. Since using this, it is very rare that I loose focus on my subject.

Yes Focus peaking is very useful I have used that on Canon with manual lenses (with Magic Lantern) , Somehow I am not very comfortable with 10X loupe for MF.

Another good feature of EP5 is wifi connectivity . I think if they can provide Android remote and viewfinder apps using WiFi it will be a killer.

On Samsung NX WiFi can be used for remote view finder on Android phone.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitk26

But can it be used on NEX which OP wants ? I think NEX focal plane to flange distance is more then micro 4/3 but I may be wrong and looks that aperture is electronically controlled.

But since we were discussing size just digged it up. It is 62.5 X 63 mm and 225gm so 7.5mm smaller then Nikkor and 65 gms lighter.

No, it can't be used with NEX. It was about the size aspect you brought up. You said (in #994) the closest equivalent m4/3 is bigger than the Nikkor. But I was aware of the even closer equivalent m4/3 that was smaller than the Nikkor.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Samurai

No, it can't be used with NEX. It was about the size aspect you brought up. You said (in #994) the closest equivalent m4/3 is bigger than the Nikkor. But I was aware of the even closer equivalent m4/3 that was smaller than the Nikkor.

OK you won by 7.5mm

But if you are little bit willing to look at the thing I am trying to point out in earlier posts then probably you will appreciate why I am saying that nearest equivalent of 55mm macro should be 60mm ( or 50mm if one exists) and not
45mm.

In case of a macro lens FOV is of little value but working distance is of more valuable.

WD = Minimum focussing distance - distance of lens rear element to focal plane (phi)

Now minimum focussing distance is always less for lens with shorter focal length and if you can find and substitute values for MFD of the 3 lenses being discussed then 60mm and 55mm are more likely to be closer then 45mm is to 55mm.

Crop factor is not of much use here but the FL-flange distance of 2 systems will have some role


Check this link if you like.

http://mcc-photo.blogspot.in/2009/01...-distance.html