Another macro thread :)

[DRode]

I apologize for the length. I'm kind of thinking out loud here.

I'm thinking about a 3-4 lens kit to compliment my XT-3. I want minimal hardware, good functional optics, but I'm not a pixel peeper.

I have the 16-80 today and love it for it's flexibility, OIS , close[ish] focus. I'll add the 10-24 OIS at some point. I have a 27mm f.2,8 and the 35mm f/1.4. I don't love either one. I don't shoot portraits or sports anymore, so no glass in those ranges needed.

I almost always prefer my iPhone Pro to the Fuji + 27mm. The 35mm is somewhat interesting due to the character and f/1.4. However, I often want to get in close to the details and can't. Also, the AF is not fun for me.

Thematically, I'm drawn to scenes that are urban, industrial, man-made. Cityscape, architectural and industrial shapes, and the details therein. Being able to get into the details, the things not obvious to the passing eye is the macro aspect for me. I'm not really shooting 1:1 bugs, coins, flowers, etc. But I do want to get in close, sometimes very close.

There's a lot I like about the 30mm f/2.8. For one, 30mm. It's just north of normal, which I like. It fixes my get-close itch. It's a reasonable one-lens walk around. There are no optical tradeoffs that concern me. The macro working distance is a compromise. The 60mm or 85mm would be better for very close work, but I have no other use for longer lengths, and they are more expensive.

The cons for me are cost, no OIS and no 1.4. If I get the 30mm, I probably sell the 35mm.

Has anyone use the 30mm similar to what I want? How has it been as the core prime option? How much did you miss wider apertures?

 

[Morris0]

I apologize for the length. I'm kind of thinking out loud here.

I'm thinking about a 3-4 lens kit to compliment my XT-3. I want minimal hardware, good functional optics, but I'm not a pixel peeper.

I have the 16-80 today and love it for it's flexibility, OIS , close[ish] focus. I'll add the 10-24 OIS at some point. I have a 27mm f.2,8 and the 35mm f/1.4. I don't love either one. I don't shoot portraits or sports anymore, so no glass in those ranges needed.

I almost always prefer my iPhone Pro to the Fuji + 27mm. The 35mm is somewhat interesting due to the character and f/1.4. However, I often want to get in close to the details and can't. Also, the AF is not fun for me.

Thematically, I'm drawn to scenes that are urban, industrial, man-made. Cityscape, architectural and industrial shapes, and the details therein. Being able to get into the details, the things not obvious to the passing eye is the macro aspect for me. I'm not really shooting 1:1 bugs, coins, flowers, etc. But I do want to get in close, sometimes very close.

There's a lot I like about the 30mm f/2.8. For one, 30mm. It's just north of normal, which I like. It fixes my get-close itch. It's a reasonable one-lens walk around. There are no optical tradeoffs that concern me. The macro working distance is a compromise. The 60mm or 85mm would be better for very close work, but I have no other use for longer lengths, and they are more expensive.

The cons for me are cost, no OIS and no 1.4. If I get the 30mm, I probably sell the 35mm.

Has anyone use the 30mm similar to what I want? How has it been as the core prime option? How much did you miss wider apertures?

Have you considered getting a set of automatic extension tubes and using them with your 16-80mm? The solution is light weight and inexpensive and will get you close.

Morris

 

[Patrick Lowe]

I apologize for the length. I'm kind of thinking out loud here.

I'm thinking about a 3-4 lens kit to compliment my XT-3. I want minimal hardware, good functional optics, but I'm not a pixel peeper.

I have the 16-80 today and love it for it's flexibility, OIS , close[ish] focus. I'll add the 10-24 OIS at some point. I have a 27mm f.2,8 and the 35mm f/1.4. I don't love either one. I don't shoot portraits or sports anymore, so no glass in those ranges needed.

I almost always prefer my iPhone Pro to the Fuji + 27mm. The 35mm is somewhat interesting due to the character and f/1.4. However, I often want to get in close to the details and can't. Also, the AF is not fun for me.

Thematically, I'm drawn to scenes that are urban, industrial, man-made. Cityscape, architectural and industrial shapes, and the details therein. Being able to get into the details, the things not obvious to the passing eye is the macro aspect for me. I'm not really shooting 1:1 bugs, coins, flowers, etc. But I do want to get in close, sometimes very close.

There's a lot I like about the 30mm f/2.8. For one, 30mm. It's just north of normal, which I like. It fixes my get-close itch. It's a reasonable one-lens walk around. There are no optical tradeoffs that concern me. The macro working distance is a compromise. The 60mm or 85mm would be better for very close work, but I have no other use for longer lengths, and they are more expensive.

The cons for me are cost, no OIS and no 1.4. If I get the 30mm, I probably sell the 35mm.

Has anyone use the 30mm similar to what I want? How has it been as the core prime option? How much did you miss wider apertures?

I have both the 30mm and 80mm Fujifilm macro lenses and in the past, I shot with 80 but after owning the 30, I find 30 is more useful which I could carry anywhere not only for macro but for something else and that's why I get rid of my other Fujifilm lenses such as 35 and 23 but I still keep the 16mm F1.4.

 

[DRode]

Have you considered getting a set of automatic extension tubes and using them with your 16-80mm? The solution is light weight and inexpensive and will get you close.

Morris

It's a good point. I should have mentioned that I have11 and 16mm extension tubes.

If I want to get closer with a particular lens, extension tubes are useful in some scenarios, but they have significant limitations and don't work well for the way I want to work.

 

[Person9]

The advantage of the 30mm f/2.8 macro lens whose focal length you seem to like is that without any additional attachments, you can get close-up shots, quickly going from far to near. However, it's close-up working distance is significantly shorter than the Fuji 60mm macro or the 80mm macro, the latter quite a hefty chunk of glass.

The 30mm macro has no image stabilization nor does your X-T3. But I grew up with film cameras and early digitals, and somehow managed to get sharp photos.

As Morris-O mentioned, extension tubes on your 16-80mm would be quite versatile, since as you zoom with a particular tube, you have a variable-magnification system. Not sure what you mean by "significant limitations and don't work well for the way I want to work.."

An alternative: use a close-up filter with the 16-80mm. An achromat, maybe +3, like a Marumi, quickly screws onto the lens (no need to remove the lens as you must with extension tubes). Image quality will be excellent with lens at f/5.6 or small aperture. Again, as you zoom, you will have a variable-magnification system.

The 16-80, by itself, gets moderately close (0.25X), and has image stabilization. With extension tubes you loose a little light at you get close (1 stop at 0.5X); no light loss with close-up filters. Zoomed to 80mm with an extension tube, you will have almost three times the working distance than you would with the 30mm macro at the same magnification.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II.

www.MacroPhotographer.net

 

[DRode]

Not sure what you mean by "significant limitations and don't work well for the way I want to work.."

With extension tubes:

A) I lose the ability to focus on distant objects. Distant on the 16-80 means anything except macro range.

B) I lose light requiring an increase in ISO shutter or aperture.

I could swap the extension tube in and out as needed but I don't want the hassle.

 

[Person9]

Dirty little secret: All macro lenses loose some light when going from infinity to close-up/macro. Depending on the optical design, they may not lose quite as much light as when using extension tubes, but there definitely is a loss. The only way to increase magnification without light loss is via close-up filters, but they effectively shorten the focal length of the lens to which they are attached, which shortens the working distance. There's always a compromise.

Since you want seamless focus from infinity to close-up, then for sure, a macro lens is the way to go.

Lester Lefkowitz

www.MacroPhotographer.net

 

[DRode]

I ultimately purchased a copy of the 30mm and it does all the right things for me. It's in the boring normal range, which I like. I've not had enough time to use it extensively, but I worked through a series of images, and I felt like my creativity was the limiting factor, not the equipment.

As I get older and more experienced, I'm far less inclined to think a particular piece of equipment will improve my photography. Instead, I try to think about how to be more creative and only buy something when I'm completely blocked.

This is a case of that for me. I have so many other options in the normal range but none got in tight enough and I felt like I was always hitting a brick wall.

TBH, I'll probably shelf my 28mm and sell the 35mm f/1.4. I don't see using either in place of the 30mm.