-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
30mm macro on test
- Thread starter Oldboy 1948
- Start date
A macro that never gets sharp????
Wow, most macro are tack-sharp wide open or very close to wide open.
So who wants an F/3.5 prime lens that is almost as big as a kit zoom and never gets sharp? Oh, and to achieve 1:1 you need to be an inch or closer to the subject.
Save your $, and wait for the 50mm OSS lens.
kerpan
Leading Member
Photozone's verdict on this lens:
"With good results for sharpness, corner shading and distortion, the only hesitation might be higher-than-desired results for chromatic aberration, but even that is treatable with post-processing."
carlgt1
Senior Member
I've just had this lens a week and my first impressions were it is great. So I just fired off a few shots of my favorite guitar (Fender Telecaster) and a bush outside, and I still think it's great. I think all of these tests, such as bashing the 16mm, are all crap and people really need to just go take some pictures and take care of their focusing, aperture, shutter speed etc. I mean Jeebus H. Christ - this lens is resolving minuscule dust & gunk on my .010" high-E string (see 100% crop) - what the hell else could you want outside of an electron microscope?
3
3
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
kerpan
Leading Member
Oops -- mental lapse -- that was actually slrgear's verdict (not photozone's).
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
blue_skies
Forum Pro
Same results as earlier tests:
But, compare with the SAL version - it seems quite similar:
- http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-dt-30mm-f-2-8-sam-macro-lens-interchangeable-lens-review-13840
- http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/561-sony30f28dt
Cheers,
Henry
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
One issue is that we have numbers to obsess over (blur units, MTF LP/PH, etc.) but no real understanding of what those numbers mean for any given photo. What's the difference between 2 & 3 blur units? 2100 and 2300 LP/PH? I think many people ascribe more significance to the differences than the data deserves. There is no discussion of experimental and sample variation error next to the results.
Another issue is that the test covers general use at medium distance and not macro use like your sample shot. There is a reason "your mileage may vary depending on how you drive" became a catch-phrase.
--
Erik
IchiroCameraGuy
Leading Member
You are silly. The same thing about the Panasonic "Leica" 45mm macro never being fully tack-sharp has been said for a long time and it sell for $660 compared to the Sony 30mm macro selling for $250.
This is the same kind of thing where m43 owners talk about problems with Panasonic strange yellow/green blotches and now Olympus blue highlights out of no where don't get mentioned on others forums. On m43 forums the Olympus IBIS problems are talked about endlessly there but over in NEX forums it is mentioned as the best answer for low light shooting and best thing about a Pen camera.
It is like endless religious proselytizing
Well, it may be misleading if it causes someone to think the lens is bad, when it clearly isn't. But some people are interested in this lens as a high quality normal and want to know whether it's really much better than their zoom at 30mm.
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
...for a macro lens and a "normal" lens.
The difference is that a macro lens is designed for "near-field" photography. At least, it should be. You have to make optimizations for the purpose of each lens and some of those optimizations are sacrifices to other aspects of how the lens "could" be used.
This happened with Nikon. The earlier 50/55 macro lenses are actually their best. They were designed to actually be macro lenses and were optimized for near-field photography. But, over time they changed the design incrementally as people were using it as a walk-around, "normal" lens. So, it basically became a normal 50, with the ability to do 1:1, with some minor performance advantages in comparison to the non-macro 50, but nowhere as sharp as its predecessor as it was now optimized for fair-field work.
This is also true of my Sigma 150/2.8. Sure, I can use it as a tele, but it performs its best on or around 1:1. I would probably have a higher lp/mm at one foot over ten feet. Why? Because, it is a macro lens. Not a tele.
You have to choose where you want the performance: near-field or far-field. Since, it is a macro, they chose near-field. This is indicated by how it resolves a speck of dust but sucks wide-open as a walk-around lens. Because, its a macro lens.
Also, a real-low f/stop is not really required for a macro. Yes, I know, I have the Sigma 150/2.8 but I did not but it because it was a f/2.8. The reason why a low f/stop is not required is you really start to loose DOF as you get closer. You would have very little DOF with a 30mm lens at 1.8 and the image would be abstract at best. Most macro lenses are optimized for f/8, some might be f/5.6 and others f/11. This, is the reason why I bought my Sigma was because it had excellent results at 1:1 at f/8. I usually bracket my shots and shoot f/8 and f/11 to see if the minor loss at f/11 is acceptable. And, in case you are wondering, I wish the lens was optimized for f/11 or maybe even f/16. What would be awesome is a macro lens optimized for f/22. Man, macro and DOF, FTW!!!!
I really hope Sony ignores these people who have NO idea what they are talking about. They apparently have designed a proper macro lens. It actually makes me want to buy it.
--
Arthur Dent hoped and prayed there wasn't an afterlife. Then, realizing the contradiction, he merely hoped there wasn't an afterlife.
The difference is that a macro lens is designed for "near-field" photography. At least, it should be. You have to make optimizations for the purpose of each lens and some of those optimizations are sacrifices to other aspects of how the lens "could" be used.
This happened with Nikon. The earlier 50/55 macro lenses are actually their best. They were designed to actually be macro lenses and were optimized for near-field photography. But, over time they changed the design incrementally as people were using it as a walk-around, "normal" lens. So, it basically became a normal 50, with the ability to do 1:1, with some minor performance advantages in comparison to the non-macro 50, but nowhere as sharp as its predecessor as it was now optimized for fair-field work.
This is also true of my Sigma 150/2.8. Sure, I can use it as a tele, but it performs its best on or around 1:1. I would probably have a higher lp/mm at one foot over ten feet. Why? Because, it is a macro lens. Not a tele.
You have to choose where you want the performance: near-field or far-field. Since, it is a macro, they chose near-field. This is indicated by how it resolves a speck of dust but sucks wide-open as a walk-around lens. Because, its a macro lens.
Also, a real-low f/stop is not really required for a macro. Yes, I know, I have the Sigma 150/2.8 but I did not but it because it was a f/2.8. The reason why a low f/stop is not required is you really start to loose DOF as you get closer. You would have very little DOF with a 30mm lens at 1.8 and the image would be abstract at best. Most macro lenses are optimized for f/8, some might be f/5.6 and others f/11. This, is the reason why I bought my Sigma was because it had excellent results at 1:1 at f/8. I usually bracket my shots and shoot f/8 and f/11 to see if the minor loss at f/11 is acceptable. And, in case you are wondering, I wish the lens was optimized for f/11 or maybe even f/16. What would be awesome is a macro lens optimized for f/22. Man, macro and DOF, FTW!!!!
I really hope Sony ignores these people who have NO idea what they are talking about. They apparently have designed a proper macro lens. It actually makes me want to buy it.
--
Arthur Dent hoped and prayed there wasn't an afterlife. Then, realizing the contradiction, he merely hoped there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, In Literature/Douglas Adams
bloomoose
Senior Member
I have it and I really would recommend anyone to use it in near-field.
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
http://www.model-kartei.de/sedcard/fotograf/184280/
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
http://www.model-kartei.de/sedcard/fotograf/184280/
Wow, another person who understands the concept of "macro" and near-field lenses!
I hope Sony ignores the crazy people and keeps up application specific lenses. I'd like to see an e-mount 100/135/150 or maybe even a 200. And, optimize that guy for like f/16.
That'd be sweet.
--
Arthur Dent hoped and prayed there wasn't an afterlife. Then, realizing the contradiction, he merely hoped there wasn't an afterlife.
I hope Sony ignores the crazy people and keeps up application specific lenses. I'd like to see an e-mount 100/135/150 or maybe even a 200. And, optimize that guy for like f/16.
That'd be sweet.
--
Arthur Dent hoped and prayed there wasn't an afterlife. Then, realizing the contradiction, he merely hoped there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, In Literature/Douglas Adams
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I'd be more interested if it was faster and not a Macro (28 F2.8) thanks for the report that it's not up to much as a normal prime - I doubt it's helpful as a macro either being so wide
--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge
--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge
bloomoose
Senior Member
Hi Adam, I wonder if the Sigma 28/2.8 will be the lens we´re looking for. But since it is rated EX, I´m not expecting it to be reasonably priced, sub 350ish. I hope, I´m wrong.
The E-Mount 30 macro really is a lens hard to like:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=39490007
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
http://www.model-kartei.de/sedcard/fotograf/184280/
The E-Mount 30 macro really is a lens hard to like:
- not razor-sharp
- slow
- too wide, not close enough
- too large
- not much better than the kit lens 18-55, even bokeh-wise meh
- not stabilised
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=39490007
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
http://www.model-kartei.de/sedcard/fotograf/184280/
viking79
Forum Pro
Thanks, that makes me feel more confident of my results from October as welll.
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1488
I still like the lens, but people need to remember it is in fact a $250 macro lens (inexpensive).
If someone donates $450 to me I will buy a macro test chart and see if it redeems itself at macro
Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum