This one is with the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4
This one is with the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G @ f/1.4
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Tamron introduces new 60mm F2 macro - Sony mount!
- Thread starter markolw
- Start date
This one is with the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G @ f/1.4
FrodeNilsen
Forum Enthusiast
If you had DOF bracketed these shots, you most probably would have picked one with a smaller aperture.
In your second example only one eye is in focus. I fail to see how this enhances the image?
Frode
In your second example only one eye is in focus. I fail to see how this enhances the image?
Frode
No, that's wrong.
For a given magnification and equal aperture, the depth of field remains the same.
--
Its obviously comes down to personal preferance,
I think the second example looks great because it creates an obvious focal point in the photo, the eyes, and that is important in portrait photography.
falconsusi
Leading Member
I just added the Tamron 60 to my wish list. All I need is the money...
Besides, I am palnning my next lens purchase to be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
The maybe after that...
--
falconsusi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10463282@N04/
Besides, I am palnning my next lens purchase to be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
The maybe after that...
--
falconsusi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10463282@N04/
You have either worded this very badly or you are badly mistaken.
FrodeNilsen
Forum Enthusiast
Not completely. It is correct if the optical magnification is small. And it is not completely equal, it might differ a few percent.
Your claim is false. Your claim is true when the magnification is the most significant.
In short, for non macro use it has the f2 speed, but f2 DOF. For macro it behaves like a 90mm f2 on FF.
Frode
FrodeNilsen
Forum Enthusiast
If you said her left eye, rather than her eyes, I might agree.
If the eyes, as in both eyes, is important in portrait photography, then DOF is too narrow. When I look at your shoot there is something wrong with it: What is the point in looking at her left eye? If her looking is the point, to draw my attention to her eyes, then why is her right eye blurry?
Frode
Phixel
Senior Member
I never said it did not.
Not for macro use and since the lens is slow focusing it has severe limitations in social settings. Maybe OK for studio work though.
Tamron says the MFD is 9.1in. (0.23m). Nothing special there.
f2 is worthless for macro work, unless you are more interested in colors than the image, because you aren't going to be able to discern much detail at f2.0 a close focusing distances.
I think Tamron designed as a marketing gimmick, not a really useful feature. No doubt there is a trade-off in sharpness to get the f2.0.
If you think having an f2 aperture on a macro lens is a good idea than you just haven't done any macro photography. For macro you want a smaller aperture, not larger. Sometimes the things you say make me think you don't actually take photos with your many cameras, but are just a gear guy. I don't see you posting many photos here. Do you even do photography or just write about it for your website? Yeah, I wonder about you to!!
-Phil
christian carneiro
Forum Enthusiast
--
I want one!!!!!!!
I want one!!!!!!!
dqnielg
Well-known member
Both eyes would have been iin focus at f/2 with a 60mm lens, and that's the focal length and aperture he's trying to defend for portraiture, so this argument seems a bit out of place/pointless.
Obviously 85mm 1.4 is going to yield a much shallower DoF than 60mm 2.0.
Obviously 85mm 1.4 is going to yield a much shallower DoF than 60mm 2.0.
Hi Frode,
thanks for your comments. This was the first day I bought the lens and I was on holiday and didn't have any lighting equipment. The choice of shooting wide open was due to lack of light as it was probably 1/20 f/1.4 and ISO 800. I can't see the picture now but I'll check it out when I get home. Thanks again for the critque as nothing is worst than someone telling you they like the picture when they don't. All honest critque is more than welcome and the harsher the better as I have much to learn.
thanks for your comments. This was the first day I bought the lens and I was on holiday and didn't have any lighting equipment. The choice of shooting wide open was due to lack of light as it was probably 1/20 f/1.4 and ISO 800. I can't see the picture now but I'll check it out when I get home. Thanks again for the critque as nothing is worst than someone telling you they like the picture when they don't. All honest critque is more than welcome and the harsher the better as I have much to learn.
WaltKnapp
Forum Pro
The question is which is it designed for? Is the lens optimized at the 1:1 distance or at portrait distances. Seems to be what we have here at least by the talk is a portrait lens to which some extra extension was added so it could be called macro.
If it's going to be called macro, I expect it to be optimized for the 1:1 distance, have a flat field and be very sharp. That sharpness should bring out every defect in the model's skin very well.
Walt
gipper51
Veteran Member
They marketed this lens to kill two birds. Macro and portraiture. Personally this lens just shot high up my list of lenses I want because of f2. This is a great portrait lens (assuming IQ is there and I'm sure it is). I doubt there is any IQ penalty on the macro front to get the f2.
Besides, you said macro shooters don't use less than f8 anyway!
--
Newest gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/root
Gear listed in profile.
It is simply true. No ifs or buts.
For framefilling yes, for magnification no.
This means, if the image of your subject is half as tall as the sensor on both formats, then depth of field will be greater on the smaller format.
If the image of your subject is equally tall on the sensor, depth of field is identical.
FrodeNilsen
Forum Enthusiast
I do not follow the math on this one. Last time I checked my statement was true for low optical magnification. It is also true for all DOF formulas and calculators out there. Please explain what you mean. f2.8 for digital point and shoot most certainly not have the same DOF as f2.8 for any DSLR at the same angle of view.
Please separate low optical magnification from great optical magnification.
Frode
FrodeNilsen
Forum Enthusiast
I DOF bracket extensively. It is a great way to get familiar with your lens. I find it hard just to master one or two prime lenses. How people can master a wide range zoom is beyond me.(unless the always shoot at handful of angles)
Frode
Frode
Phixel
Senior Member
Sorry, but as portraits these photos are not good. As art they are OK though. Like I said before, f2 DOF is too shallow for portraits. -- Phil
This one is with the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4
This one is with the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G @ f/1.4
liquid stereo
Veteran Member
--
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
Lenses: Mostly primes, a few zooms, several Gs, one CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
Lenses: Mostly primes, a few zooms, several Gs, one CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
gipper51
Veteran Member
A portrait at 50mm F2.2. This was all I have handy on my pbase ATM.
f/2 is not too shallow for portraits, you just gotta know how to use it!
--
Newest gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/root
Gear listed in profile.
Similar threads
- For sale
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum