Jump to content

Which macro lens ?


Magic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm surprised by what you're saying Ian. I have never got ugly bokey out of the 90/4 macro so far. Below at f/4 and f/22.  

 

attachicon.gifDSC00419_c1si_web.jpg

 

attachicon.gifDSC06534_c1si_web.jpg

 

 

It's no doubt background dependent (as it usually is with bokeh) but I don't find the bokeh quite harsh when the background is busy. I see hints of it in the pine needles of your first photograph but these examples might better illustrate what I describe as "ugly bokeh".

 

M0000627-w.jpg

 

 

M0000679-w.jpg

Edited by wattsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

May i ask if you used a macro adapter for those pics and what aperture you were working at? Just curious. 

 

 

Yes, both taken with the goggles if I recall correctly and probably F4-F5.6 or thereabouts. I think I see where you might be heading and you may be right that it is preferable to stop down more at this close range.

 

Here's another Macro Elmar-M example. Without the goggles I would think.

 

28863881930_7b775c3d19_c.jpg

 

 

As a point of comparison with the other photographs (the red campion and buttercup ones), is this example taken at a similar range with the Nikon 105/F2.8 VR lens. (I believe I'm allowed to show it here as part of a technical discussion).

 

28330102451_00d4003e88_c.jpg

 

This latter photograph is of course digital (D810) and all the others are film but I can't imagine that is a pertinent difference.

Edited by wattsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i shoot at  smaller apertures for macro, here at f/22 with smooth bokeh as expected. Now you piqued my interest with your interesting pictures so i will check how the lens behaves with macro adapter at larger apertures for my information.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two best I have used are 100 2.8 APO+macro elmar and 105 2.8 micro Nikkor, any model except the G which needs a Nikon digi to control aperture unless there is some kludge out there now.    

 

Universal focus mount or bellows , 65 elmar (black version),  90 2.8 Elmarit made for viso,  135 4.0 tele elmar were and still are wonderful macro lenses.  Good luck finding them. Mine are not for sale and family will inherit.

 

90 4.0 macro is a superb lens for general photography,  less so for macro.  Sharp,  but bad bokeh according to some.   Mine was purchased new without close focus devices way back when they were sold that way.   It will focus as close as I want a RF to focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Couple of snaps at f/5.6 with macro adapter below. Not my favorite aperture for macro but bokeh doesn't look questionable to me. YMMV.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

M 4.0/90 Macro ( without or with the macro adapter) is a superb lens imo and I'm very pleased with the results, both on slide film and used on the M9. The bokeh "wide open" is very much to my liking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of snaps at f/5.6 with macro adapter below. Not my favorite aperture for macro but bokeh doesn't look questionable to me. YMMV.

 

attachicon.gifDSC06571_c1si_web.jpg

 

attachicon.gifDSC06621_c1si_web.jpg

 

 

Your backgrounds are fairly 'clean'. I would try again with lots of grass or other detail behind and around the main plane of focus. The lighting in your photo examples is also very flat and I think this makes quite a bit of difference. Looking at the photographs where I'm most dissatisfied with the bokeh I'd say the common factors are lots of detailed, defined elements (like grass, flower stems or branches) behind the focal plane and picked out by the light, a very close focus distance (usually the minimum the lens + goggles will allow) and a fairly open aperture (F4-F8).

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK f/5.6 again. The third pic is a crop. Not sure if my Elmarit-R 60/2.8 is sharper. Bad bokeh really? 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad bokeh really? 

 

attachicon.gifDSC06723_c1si_web.jpg

 

 

I wouldn't say the second one has great bokeh but you are not photographing the most testing of subject matter. Get down in the grass or a similar busy environment, in good light and at minimum focus distance with the googles and show me what you get. Try F4 too – maybe that's what I'm doing more than I should.  :D

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Ms both M 90 mm Macros make a very good job, good alternative is the Leica R 60mm Macro. I used both on my M240 (sold in the meanwhile, because changed to a SL). The M 90 mm together with a Marumi Achromat gives a higher

magnification factor than to achieve with only the lens as far as the "old" version of the lesn is used. Below a photo wwith old M 90 Elmar Macro plus the Marumi with 5 diop:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say the second one has great bokeh but you are not photographing the most testing of subject matter. Get down in the grass or a similar busy environment, in good light and at minimum focus distance with the googles and show me what you get. Try F4 too – maybe that's what I'm doing more than I should.  :D

 

I like the way you're playing with light and blur. I will try at f/4 next time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The macro adpater is unnecessarily expensive. You could get a OUFRO on ebay for much cheaper.

 

Yes but it but does have  variable extension length....and lets face it Leica is unnecessarily expensive.

.....and we still buy it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The macro adpater is unnecessarily expensive. You could get a OUFRO on ebay for much cheaper.

 

Well i paid EUR 285 for my 14642 macro adapter. Not inexpensive for sure but it has a 6-bit flange and an helicoid mount contrary to OUFRO. Also OUFRO is only 10mm thick if memory serves whereas 14642 can vary between 18mm and 30mm.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...