Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 24, 2011, 5:54 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbyone View Post
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.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 8:22 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

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.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 11:20 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 49
Default

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... (still a hundred miles away )
__________________
Nikon D7000 | Nikkor 18-105mm | SB-700 | Nikkor 70-300 VR
LGWGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 4:33 PM   #14
Member
 
gabbyone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 56
Default

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....
gabbyone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 5:29 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGWGM View Post
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.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 7:18 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 49
Default

@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!
__________________
Nikon D7000 | Nikkor 18-105mm | SB-700 | Nikkor 70-300 VR
LGWGM is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:45 AM.