Reading mode: Light Dark

Macro with the Sigma 60 F2.8

Go to last post
dougjgreen1 said:
Actually, my first choice is to use a dedicated legacy macro, or a dedicated modern macro lens.

The fact is, you'd post more accurate information if you stuck to content you had knowledge of, rather than claiming that the reason for my choice is my personal obsession with filters. It's not - it's purely based upon the fact that extension tubes degrade the image worse than any other choice you can make in macro. In this case, not having glass means you are not correcting for aberrations that the lens otherwise exhibits when focused outside of it's designed range.
Click to expand...
After reading you claim using filters is easier than adjusting SS, i won't put much faith in anything you say. I can look up the thread and quote you if you'd like, but you know what im talking about. You literally said changing SS was a hasstle. One dial clicked 3 times... You were just insistent on defending your camera not having a 1/8000 SS, and ignoring the fact that other cameras with this extra stop can still use ND filters. Personal bias to the extent of being dishonest is far worse than ignorance, not that your claim of a lack of glass being worse is turning out to be true. In fact, they look very nice.

Try as i might, i can't see any aberrations you speak of. Thanks for commenting but your advise is wasted on me.



84fd7191ba9d4c9e96a4a582735ef3dc.jpg



Pixel level looks good to me.
Pixel level looks good to me.



b75a9ff1ebce401aace457620b9b5292.jpg





--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
 
Ontario Gone said:
dougjgreen1 said:
Actually, my first choice is to use a dedicated legacy macro, or a dedicated modern macro lens.

The fact is, you'd post more accurate information if you stuck to content you had knowledge of, rather than claiming that the reason for my choice is my personal obsession with filters. It's not - it's purely based upon the fact that extension tubes degrade the image worse than any other choice you can make in macro. In this case, not having glass means you are not correcting for aberrations that the lens otherwise exhibits when focused outside of it's designed range.
Click to expand...
After reading you claim using filters is easier than adjusting SS, i won't put much faith in anything you say. I can look up the thread and quote you if you'd like, but you know what im talking about. You literally said changing SS was a hasstle. One dial clicked 3 times... You were just insistent on defending your camera not having a 1/8000 SS, and ignoring the fact that other cameras with this extra stop can still use ND filters. Personal bias to the extent of being dishonest is far worse than ignorance, not that your claim of a lack of glass being worse is turning out to be true. In fact, they look very nice.
Click to expand...
Pretty clearly, that comment was meant as a sarcastic mocking of your prior argument in another unrelated thread that filters invariably degrade all the images they are used for. If you were stupid enough to take the claim literally, that does not speak well of your judgment and your sarcasm detector.

In any case, you are welcome to ignore everything I say, even as it may be to your detriment. I was simply attempting to educate OTHER folks as to the fact that extension tubes generally degrade the image more than good achromat close-up lenses do. I've already come to the realization that you personally are incapable of actually learning something.

BTW, you're not going to seriously suggest that the images you just posted here are anywhere NEAR as sharp at the edges of the field as they are in the center, are you? Because that lack of sharpness at the edges when you've used the extension tubes is exactly what I was referring to.

Ontario Gone said:
Try as i might, i can't see any aberrations you speak of. Thanks for commenting but your advise is wasted on me.

Pixel level looks good to me.
Pixel level looks good to me.

b75a9ff1ebce401aace457620b9b5292.jpg

--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dougjgreen1 said:
Pretty clearly, that comment was meant as a sarcastic mocking of your prior argument in another unrelated thread
Click to expand...
It was clear? You should pretend we can't all read your mind.
dougjgreen1 said:
If you were stupid enough to take the claim literally, that does not speak well of your judgment and your sarcasm detector.
Click to expand...
Once again resorting to name calling, just like in the other thread. I bet people would have more manners if this site wasn't anonymous. As for my sarcasm detector, perhaps you should just be honest instead of making excuses after the fact.
dougjgreen1 said:
In any case, you are welcome to ignore everything I say, even as it may be to your detriment. I was simply attempting to educate OTHER folks as to the fact that extension tubes generally degrade the image more than good achromat close-up lenses do. I've already come to the realization that you personally are incapable of actually learning something.
Click to expand...
The only thing i have been convinced of is that tubes will kill off maybe a couple stops of light, but if you are using flash that's actually a good thing as it helps overpower ambient light. You of all people being a relentless promoter of ND filters should value that.
dougjgreen1 said:
BTW, you're not going to seriously suggest that the images you just posted here are anywhere NEAR as sharp at the edges of the field as they are in the center, are you? Because that lack of sharpness at the edges when you've used the extension tubes is exactly what I was referring to.
Click to expand...
I will have to test for that, but even if it's not it won't matter much, im not shooting macro of stamps. Most of my subject will fill the center half and most of the edge material would be in a different plane of focus. Not to mention, how can we tell soft edges are not a factor of the lens rather than tubes?
 
Ontario Gone said:
dougjgreen1 said:
Pretty clearly, that comment was meant as a sarcastic mocking of your prior argument in another unrelated thread
Click to expand...
It was clear? You should pretend we can't all read your mind.
Click to expand...
I admit that it requires a modicum of intelligence to do it. Not everyone is up to it.
Ontario Gone said:
Ontario Gone said:
If you were stupid enough to take the claim literally, that does not speak well of your judgment and your sarcasm detector.
Click to expand...
Once again resorting to name calling, just like in the other thread. I bet people would have more manners if this site wasn't anonymous. As for my sarcasm detector, perhaps you should just be honest instead of making excuses after the fact.
Click to expand...
My handle is my first and last name and middle initial, with the number 1 appended to it. I don't need, nor desire anonymity, clearly you can't say the same.
Ontario Gone said:
Ontario Gone said:
In any case, you are welcome to ignore everything I say, even as it may be to your detriment. I was simply attempting to educate OTHER folks as to the fact that extension tubes generally degrade the image more than good achromat close-up lenses do. I've already come to the realization that you personally are incapable of actually learning something.
Click to expand...
The only thing i have been convinced of is that tubes will kill off maybe a couple stops of light, but if you are using flash that's actually a good thing as it helps overpower ambient light. You of all people being a relentless promoter of ND filters should value that.
Click to expand...
Just for yucks, I'll again explain what tubes do, despite knowing full well it will blow by you: The fact is, what tubes do is, rather than contribute their own image degradation, they push the lens beyond it's inherent design capabilities to where the lens' own defects become obvious because they are outside the range where those defects have been corrected. The folks who design lenses make intelligent trade-offs about how close to allow a lens to focus, because they will attempt to design the optic so that deficiencies are reasonably well corrected up to that point, but no further (because doing more adds cost, and complexity). When you push a lens 10 or 20mm further away from it's design limited closest focus point, you are pushing it out beyond the zone in which the optical design has been corrected for major aberrations. It's the lens' own aberrations, which normally are invisible, that are revealed by the use of tubes. Conversely, using achromats may introduce some small degradation themselves into the image, but by altering the focus point before the light beams even get to the lens, the lens itself remains within it's design parameters in terms of it's focus point and the aberrations that the lens itself introduce into the eventual image. So, in aggregate, fewer defects reach the image, especially at the borders, when properly designed achromats are used than when tubes are used.
Ontario Gone said:
Ontario Gone said:
BTW, you're not going to seriously suggest that the images you just posted here are anywhere NEAR as sharp at the edges of the field as they are in the center, are you? Because that lack of sharpness at the edges when you've used the extension tubes is exactly what I was referring to.
Click to expand...
I will have to test for that, but even if it's not it won't matter much, im not shooting macro of stamps. Most of my subject will fill the center half and most of the edge material would be in a different plane of focus. Not to mention, how can we tell soft edges are not a factor of the lens rather than tubes?

--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
Click to expand...
 
Well, perhaps i should get me some achromats. Imagine how good this Sigma lens would be then.
 
Well, I do disagree, and understand it's all a matter of opinion. This often comes up in food photography, in which I feel the same way. As for portraits, again I feel the same way. If the far ear is slightly out of focus, maybe acceptable. If an eye or half of the face is out of focus, then it's ridiculous. It takes work to get the right angle and maybe stop down some to make it look right and maybe have to use a tripod. To me, just opening the lens wide open and snapping away is not photography. I'm not saying you did this. I understand how depth of field works and that it takes a little effort to make a photo look better.
 
dougjgreen1 said:
Impulses said:
Fredrik Glckner said:
Impulses said:
Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.
Click to expand...
If you do get the Neewer/Meike/Skyblye/etc macro rings, then be aware that they have somewhat glossy insides. You can easily overcome this by sanding their insides, see here:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2014/02/loss-of-contrast-with-macro-rings.html

This could improve their performance in some cases.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I now see those are mostly plastic whereas the Fotasy/Fotga ones going for slightly more ($50-65) have metal mounts... I don't necessarily think a metal mount on a plastic part means it's better built but I guess if they're spending a little more they might have better QC or tolerances? Dunno, OTOH there's one complaint about getting too tight of a fit w/the Fotga and looking back there's been a few similar comments on the boards (though w/other mirrorless mounts I think, not M43).
Ontario Gone said:
I grabbed the Fotasy brand from Amazon. I was planning on getting the vello ones from B&H but changed my mind at the last minute since i bought my lens from Amazon too. I think there isn't much difference between brands, and the two prices you will find are either plastic/metal for the mount. I bought the metal mount version just to be safe. They are light weight and fit snug, everything works perfectly.

I wanted the Sigma anyway so i figure it was a cheap and easy way to get my macro with it. Im still testing out the Sigma at smaller apertures to see what sharpness is good enough for me but it's a great all around lens and works good with the tubes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Impulses said:
Impulses said:
Impulses said:
Fredrik Glckner said:
Impulses said:
Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.
Click to expand...
If you do get the Neewer/Meike/Skyblye/etc macro rings, then be aware that they have somewhat glossy insides. You can easily overcome this by sanding their insides, see here:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2014/02/loss-of-contrast-with-macro-rings.html

This could improve their performance in some cases.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I now see those are mostly plastic whereas the Fotasy/Fotga ones going for slightly more ($50-65) have metal mounts... I don't necessarily think a metal mount on a plastic part means it's better built but I guess if they're spending a little more they might have better QC or tolerances? Dunno, OTOH there's one complaint about getting too tight of a fit w/the Fotga and looking back there's been a few similar comments on the boards (though w/other mirrorless mounts I think, not M43).
Ontario Gone said:
I grabbed the Fotasy brand from Amazon. I was planning on getting the vello ones from B&H but changed my mind at the last minute since i bought my lens from Amazon too. I think there isn't much difference between brands, and the two prices you will find are either plastic/metal for the mount. I bought the metal mount version just to be safe. They are light weight and fit snug, everything works perfectly.

I wanted the Sigma anyway so i figure it was a cheap and easy way to get my macro with it. Im still testing out the Sigma at smaller apertures to see what sharpness is good enough for me but it's a great all around lens and works good with the tubes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top