Photozone reviews 50/1.8 and 30/3.5

Started Mar 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
nzmacro
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,480Gear list
Like?
Re: wow, does not look good for the macro
In reply to viking79, Mar 16, 2012

viking79 wrote:

Franka T.L. wrote:

I am amazed that a fix focal of standard coverage and of f/3.5 can be so well, ho hum ( for a Macro lens ). that 2.4 pixel width CA , even on the 24MP NEX-7 is still pretty heavy , one pay for the price for a macro for iuts performance, and it look like the macro here is having a bit of problem delivering ...

I tried to say this last year on my blog, but got generally negative comments that it was the best lens, etc Oh well.

It is a nice lens, nice for closeups, but doesn't really fit the bill of true macro (i.e. flat field for reproduction work and corrected for aberrations). I do like the bokeh for a 30mm lens, and it is very sharp in the center.

http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1488

The issue is people have been told that 1:1 is a true macro lens by all the sales people, but a true macro lens doesn't have a particular magnification, it is corrected for close focus, minimal CA, minimal distortion, etc.

Eric

I think for specailty macro I wouldn't get that lens. I would sooner shoot MF for macro, AF is not that important.......IMO.

All the best.

Danny.
...........................
m4/3 macro
http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

m4/3 feathered flying gadgets
http://www.macrophotos.com/avian/avian.html

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
AluNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow