wattsy Posted March 16, 2017 Share #21 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 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. DSC00419_c1si_web.jpg DSC06534_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". Edited March 16, 2017 by wattsy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Hi wattsy, Take a look here Which macro lens ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted March 16, 2017 Share #22 Posted March 16, 2017 May i ask if you used a macro adapter for those pics and what aperture you were working at? Just curious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 16, 2017 Share #23 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 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. 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). 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 March 16, 2017 by wattsy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 16, 2017 Share #24 Posted March 16, 2017 Another film photograph taken with the Macro Elmar-M using the goggles (one of the Chalkhill Blues from above). The bokeh seems ok but the background is much cleaner than in some of the previous examples. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 16, 2017 Share #25 Posted March 16, 2017 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270233-which-macro-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3235223'>More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted March 16, 2017 Share #26 Posted March 16, 2017 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2017 Share #27 Posted March 17, 2017 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270233-which-macro-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3235429'>More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2017 Share #28 Posted March 17, 2017 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270233-which-macro-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3235430'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2017 Share #29 Posted March 17, 2017 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 17, 2017 Share #30 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) 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. DSC06571_c1si_web.jpg DSC06621_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 March 17, 2017 by wattsy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2017 Share #31 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) 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 March 17, 2017 by lct Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270233-which-macro-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3235575'>More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2017 Share #32 Posted March 17, 2017 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270233-which-macro-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3235576'>More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 17, 2017 Share #33 Posted March 17, 2017 Darn Ict those are beautiful ! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 17, 2017 Share #34 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Bad bokeh really? DSC06723_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. Edited March 17, 2017 by wattsy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 17, 2017 Share #35 Posted March 17, 2017 Here's another one of mine, this time without the goggles. Rosebay willowherb contre-jour in midsummer evening light. I don't mind the the bokeh here. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted March 17, 2017 Share #36 Posted March 17, 2017 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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270233-which-macro-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3235691'>More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2017 Share #37 Posted March 17, 2017 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. I like the way you're playing with light and blur. I will try at f/4 next time. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted March 18, 2017 Share #38 Posted March 18, 2017 The macro adpater is unnecessarily expensive. You could get a OUFRO on ebay for much cheaper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 18, 2017 Share #39 Posted March 18, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 18, 2017 Share #40 Posted March 18, 2017 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.