Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   New here...:) (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/new-here-184556/)

tizeye Feb 24, 2011 6:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabbyone (Post 1203252)
Tizeye
I like the tamron 90 sample photos over the nikon 85 macro photos. I believe you are saying you do as well? They just seem "prettier"

IQ wasn't the reason I was referring to. Both are capable true 1:1 macro (while the zooms are watered down "close focus" 1:2 macro) what kills the Nikon is being strattled with f3.5, limiting the DOF which is critical on a macro. That is what may be making it "prettier" as the shallower DOF on the Tamron brings that portion in focus forward making it stand out. When they are both about the same price, the Nikon name just doesn't carry it - particurally with the good performance reviews of the Tamron. The sad part is the Nikon 85 f3.5 is one of the newest released in the macro field, so Nikon knew the competition but chose to ignore it in the design. Now if they had done a 85 f2.8 at that pricepoint, things would get really interesting.

tclune Feb 24, 2011 9:22 AM

This makes no sense at all AFAICS. Macros are virtually always shot at small apertures. The reason there is no depth of field is because macros don't have any depth at any aperture. Shooting at f/22 will be too narrow a depth of field for most subjects -- and have diffraction blurring, too. That's why people shoot stacked macros -- so they can get reasonable depth of field and avoid diffraction blurring by using an aperture more along the lines of f/11 or so.

LGWGM Feb 24, 2011 12:20 PM

Thanks for the tip tclune, you've just added another thing on my lists to learn :)

Trying to get the perfect/optimum result from your digital SLR and lenses is not as easy as I was thinking...:doh: (still a hundred miles away :rolleyes:)

gabbyone Feb 24, 2011 5:33 PM

What do you all think of the nikon 60mm macro? I used it last summer at my kid's wedding. The photos were sharp! Better then any of the lenses I actually owned. I didn't rent it for the wedding, I rented it to do some summer flower photos and such. But took it to the wedding and wow....

tclune Feb 24, 2011 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LGWGM (Post 1203425)
Thanks for the tip tclune, you've just added another thing on my lists to learn :)

I reread what I wrote, and I realize that it is stunningly poorly expressed. When I say that macros have very shallow depth of field, I mean macro photographs. Macro lenses, when used for normal photographs, act just like any other lens in terms of depth of field. Sorry for the poor wording.

LGWGM Feb 25, 2011 8:18 AM

@tclune

No worries bro, I was referring to the diffraction thinggy (wasn't aware of that before your post). I read some articles regarding that matter and was really happy to know the exact effects.

Cheers!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:58 AM.