Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: sony macro lens  (Read 7186 times)
Slough
Guest
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2008, 02:18:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I would just use a flash then. I shot that spider in pitch darkness, just by holding a flashlight on the subject (so my camera could focus) and I just used a weak flash, and it came out pretty good. Regarding bokeh, this is something I don't really care about as much as the up-close fine detail of the subject. Where my camera really stinks is long-end telephoto. Just looks terrible.

I prefer not to use flash as the black background is unnatural.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
That is interesting, with no background whatsoever. Honestly though, I find the color kind of weak and nauseating. I understand it's a white butterfly that has no color, but the background is a rather puke-green, and even the wheat stalk is a bit under-saturated IMO.

Something tells me that you are quite a large chap. Smaller people tend to be more circumspect in their self expression.  

Joking aside, some people prefer more natural colours, whilst other like Velvia colours. I wonder if your monitor is calibrated? If not then you are not seeing the same as me anyway. My work monitor is yuck.
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2008, 09:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
The G9 offers superior DOF, light weight and mobility, plus crystal-clear shots that have yet to be shown in the subject lens of this thread.






Thank you. Your photos show a much smoother overall effect, but your true subject is not anywhere near as sharp as my subjects. So which is better? Is having a smoother overall "look," but a blurry subject the true goal of a macro shot? Or is having a sharp and crystal-clear subject the true goal?

Are we taking photos of "backgrounds" or of arthropods?






I agree, I am looking to get a good lens. I just haven't seen anything from the Sony to consider it "good" at this point.






Yes, but your image is tiny. It is easy to have a smooth image from a small .jpg. I had my images blown up huge. I think my spiders look sharper and clearer when downsized too:







That is kind of a nice shot, but again is it something remarkable over and above what other lenses could do? I don't have anything taken to compare to this, but although yours is a pleasant shot, I see nothing about it that is compelling me to buy the lens that took it. I think I could make the same thing with what I am working with now.

Again, no disrespect, just voicing my honest opinion.

Jack




.

At that size I still see bad chromatic aberration and poor color fidelity. Its good the background is black.

What makes you think the macro cant be stopped down? Those 2 shots where probably f5.6 to f8. They are from a few years back on the Sony A100 with the 100 macro. Ive taken macro shots with that lens at f22 which still look sharp. F32, the min aperture, would probably start to show noticeable softening, i don't know for sure as ive never tried it.

If you want more sharp depth stop down or use the 50 2.8 Macro which is also a very good lens. I'll put it this way, I use both lenses with the sony A350. Its pixel pitch is very fine. I dont have to use sharpening with those lenses. They are crisp at 100%.

The creamy bokeh is for artistic effect.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2008, 11:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the input fellas. I have my pre-conceived notion of what I want in a macro shot, but it helps to get other people's perspectives, especially when they are more educated than my own

Jack

PS: No, Slough, I am not too big of a guy, about 195. I am just direct, blunt, and to the point. It saves time, LOL
I guess it is a good thing I don't have a macro shot of my scalp and all the facial scarring that I earned over the years because of it. I am one of those guys who will walk into the middle of a Master Chess Tournament, and exclaim, "Who's winning?!!" in the dead of concentrated silence ... and wonder why every single person is running after me with blunt objects
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2008, 02:24:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Some test pictures from A900 and Minolta 100/2.8 macro here:

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_10028_macro

I might have some issues with flatness of the target, but the images should give you some idea about central sharpness. The images are full res JPEGs.

My guess is that the Sony SAL 100/2.8 macro is a close relative of this lens.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: mattpallante
Does anyone have the Sony sal-100m28 macro lens? I'm looking for a macro/portrait for my a900. Thanks for any comments/advice.

                     Matt
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 02:26:20 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

NLund
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2008, 12:27:23 AM »
ReplyReply

@JohnKoerner,

I find some of your posts to teeter toward hubris, and not just in this thread. I made sure to read through this whole thread to gain clarity. You seemed taken aback that people were offended by your words. This post was started to debate the merits of a particular lens, not the talk about the G9 and how it's 'better' in so many aspects. After numerous well though out replies from other people here, you began to take back some of your words. To be civil.

Regarding overall sharpness vs. bokeh, you seem to have your own opinions of what is pleasing. Here, I choose to argue very little. People have different opinions in everything. If you value sharpness everywhere, then that is fine. Many professional and advanced amateurs prefer the smooth transitions that larger sensors afford. For more creative work one could choose the 135 STF lens, which has some of the best bokeh around. Period. (From what I hear...I haven't had the pleasure myself) Or, perhaps adapt a 90mm T/S lens with an extension tube for close focus.

The point of using an f/2.8 macro lens is choice. I can choose to leave it wide open and have very little be rendered sharply, or I can stop down to f/16 or f/22 and have much more in focus. I don't know the exact specs of the G9, but it is certain the bokeh is far behind what can be achieved with a modern DSLR and a dedicated macro (or other type of lens for that matter).

Again, as per bokeh. I am amongst those that find it pleasing and important. I have friends who look at my images on screen and prints and have no idea what 'bokeh' is and blink a few times when I try to explain it. But they are always impressed by shots that utilize it well.

Spiky Tree Bark at Dallas World Aquarium
(ISO 1250, f/4, 1/160 second)


Just for brief reference to sharpness.
(ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/160 second. Flash used)


Both images are RAW images with Lightroom default sharpening. AKA no extra sharpening.


I find it humorous, I'm a Canon user, these shots are from my 30D with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. However, the A900 has my attention, hence the post.

edited for respect.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 01:15:11 AM by NLund » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2008, 10:09:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NLund
@JohnKoerner,
I find some of your posts to teeter toward hubris, and not just in this thread.

I find pedantic pontification to be a form of hubris




Quote from: NLund
I made sure to read through this whole thread to gain clarity. You seemed taken aback that people were offended by your words. This post was started to debate the merits of a particular lens, not the talk about the G9 and how it's 'better' in so many aspects.

Thank you for reading back to me what transpired in this thread, as if I wasn't the one here participating in it  

Yes, this thread originated by asserting the merits of the Sony macro lens. I just didn't think the lens was all that sharp, and I still don't. People have shown me the difference in "bokeh," and I understand and appreciate the effect of bokeh, but I still don't think the lens is all that sharp.

Finally, if you're going to berate me for comparing the Canon G9 to the Sony, then by the same logic what does your Canon 30D and 100mm have to do with a Sony?




Quote from: NLund
After numerous well though out replies from other people here, you began to take back some of your words. To be civil.

I haven't taken back anything. I acknowledged the superior bokeh, I appreciate the education about the bokeh, but I still don't think the lens is all that sharp. And I am still left wondering why you feel the need to attempt to paraphrase this past discussion back to me?




Quote from: NLund
Regarding overall sharpness vs. bokeh, you seem to have your own opinions of what is pleasing. Here, I choose to argue very little. People have different opinions in everything. If you value sharpness everywhere, then that is fine. Many professional and advanced amateurs prefer the smooth transitions that larger sensors afford. For more creative work one could choose the 135 STF lens, which has some of the best bokeh around. Period. (From what I hear...I haven't had the pleasure myself) Or, perhaps adapt a 90mm T/S lens with an extension tube for close focus.

Exactly. It's a matter of taste and objective. For what I do, I like capturing the subject (arthropod) by photograph and then attempting to identify its species/subspecies with a field guide. How creamy the bokeh is means nothing to me. How sharp and accurately the majority of the subject is captured means everything to me. So what I did was come to understand the perspective of others, and appreciate the need and "look" of a nice bokeh, while still not being overly impressed with the lens for my purposes.




Quote from: NLund
The point of using an f/2.8 macro lens is choice. I can choose to leave it wide open and have very little be rendered sharply, or I can stop down to f/16 or f/22 and have much more in focus. I don't know the exact specs of the G9, but it is certain the bokeh is far behind what can be achieved with a modern DSLR and a dedicated macro (or other type of lens for that matter).

Thanks for the clarification, but I really don't have any use for bokeh at this point. I have a use for sharp photos that bring my subject into full clarity. For this reason, I like a little more depth-of-field (or field-of-view, I am not sure which is the correct term), but I enjoy this better because I want as much of the subject "in focus" as possible. A lot of arthropods in photos only have their face and a leg or two "in focus," while the rest of them is out of focus, which I find an annoyance and not a good photograph. From an "artsy" point of view, some might "ooh" and "ahh" over the bokeh, but I myself would be displeased that more of my subject wasn't in focus than what was in focus. If what you're saying is that a dedicated macro stopped down to f/16 or f/22 would produce a more completely-focused effect, then these are the kinds of photos I would like to see more examples of.




Quote from: NLund
Again, as per bokeh. I am amongst those that find it pleasing and important. I have friends who look at my images on screen and prints and have no idea what 'bokeh' is and blink a few times when I try to explain it. But they are always impressed by shots that utilize it well.

Well, I have come to admire the bokeh too, in an attempt to appreciate the affects others are trying to achieve in their photography, but that is not the effect *I* am trying to achieve in mine. I am trying to get as much of the arthropod in focus as I can, and really don't give a hoot about the background. I do appreciate why someone else would find a creamy bokeh and "buttery background" pleasing to the eye, but I am not trying to produce fine art, only to capture an arthropod in its entirety as clearly as possible.




Quote from: NLund
Spiky Tree Bark at Dallas World Aquarium
(ISO 1250, f/4, 1/160 second)


I myself find it humorous that you got on me for interjecting some photos taken by Canon G9 for comparison to the Sony macro, and then yourself posted a couple of  Canon images on this same Sony thread for comparison. Also, this thread is about the Sony 100mm macro, and you end by talking about your interest in the A900.

But other than this, and the bumps and bruises that have occured here to so many sensitive feelings, I am grateful to have learned a few things. I also appreciate the affect that others are trying to achieve. It has made me more aware of what a professional is looking for. If I can take a razor sharp photo of my entire subject, and achieve a creamy bokeh as well, certainly I would like to achieve this. But honestly, if it is an "either-or" choice, then I would rather sacrifice bokeh to have more of my subject in sharp focus than I would to have a wonderful bokeh and only a tiny fraction of my intended subject in focus.

Jack
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 10:16:20 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
NLund
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2008, 05:55:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Out of curiosity, do you use your camera equipment to identify spiders as a profession or hobby/passion?

The irony of posting images taken with the Canon lens wasn't completely lost to me, just mostly. I posted them for visual reference to the lengthy debate over bokeh/sharpness/etc. Hindsight 20/20.

I stated having read the entire thread so as not to appear that I had read one post and voiced my opinion solely on that.

Yeah, the 'edited for respect' thing did mean that I was rather frustrated and initially livid, but toned things down be respectful.

Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2008, 03:25:24 PM »
ReplyReply

First of all, Merry Christmas to you and yours!

And I am glad you have a sense of humor  




Quote from: NLund
Out of curiosity, do you use your camera equipment to identify spiders as a profession or hobby/passion?

Thank you for asking. It is a hobby/passion that I am thinking about turning into a profession. I have lots of "field guides"; however, I find the little thumbnail-sized photos in them to be completely unsatisfying. I have an idea to attempt to identify and photograph every kind of arthropod endemic to Florida, but rather than have 1 or 2 tiny little photos, I am thinking about having several very large, crystal-clear photos of each species. I think that students, kids (and 44-year-old kids like me  ) would find such a pictorial a lot more satisfying to look at and read than one of these catch-all books that has only 1 tiny photo of each species.

This is why I have such an interest in getting my entire subject as clear as I can, while not caring so much about the background. I like the G9 simply because it is portable, handy, and takes some pretty razor-sharp photos of my entire subject.

When I said it takes "better" photos than the Sigma, I was myopically thinking only in "my" terms. I had never even thought of the background at all, only of what I was trying to capture, the subject. When I criticized the other fellas' photos, it was not to be a jerk, or mean, I was only giving my honest opinion, based upon my own paradigm or frame of reference. Consider the arthropod photos posted by EPd and Fine_Art:

Quote from: EPd
[attachment=10139:Killer_F...ith_Prey.jpg] (I can't get this one to post)

Quote from: Fine_Art


DarkPenguin did acknowledge it was a great shot, but he simply (and honestly) said the background I left ruined the overall effect. As I mentioned, I could give a hoot about the background, yet I now realize "others" can and do give a hoot about the background. So I didn't get my feelings hurt by DP's remarks, quite the contrary. I believe that DP's criticism helped me in this regard, by showing me the importance of background, and so now I kinda hate my own photo also  

I have been mulling over getting a Nikon D300 and 105 mm macro, or a Canon 50D and a 100 mm macro, and I will probably wind up going with the Canon, simply because I could get the camera and lens for the same price as just the D300 body ... and (after holding and shooting with both) I find the 50D just feels better in my hands ... but I am sure either would fit my needs. And, to be honest, some of what you said about the stopping down to get more DOF has helped me.

So anyway, I truly hope you and your family have a great and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year  

Jack




.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 04:37:00 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2008, 07:42:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
Jack,
Obviously you have a very limited way of looking at the world around you.

Correction, I have a very specific way in which I want to capture the world around me.





Quote from: EPd
Coupled to a totally self-centered attitude combined with a big mouth it makes you a typical anti-social character in this sort of conversations.

I am self-centered, in that I want to capture photos that satisfy what I am looking for. Do I have a big mouth, or am I just blunt, direct, and honest? Could it also be that you have a "feminine, sensitive" side to you which causes you to "get hurt" over hearing people's true opinions? I am not anti-social at all, but I do like to cut through the bullshit. Your original photos of arthropods were absolutely useless in any capacity: as "art" or for identification purposes. I am sorry if my honest opinion hurt your feelings, but it is simply the truth as I see it.




Quote from: EPd
If you knew you had to learn, why not tone down your voice a bit and listen to what others have to say?

I did listen to what others had to say. I did learn the value of bokeh. I did appreciate the overall "buttery" look of some of the photos. But none of this will help your photograph of the arthropod be a good photo, and none of it changes what "I" am looking for in a macrophoto.





Quote from: EPd
I have no interest in defending the photograph I posted in this thread as anyone is able to see why I made it and decide for himself whether he likes it or not.

You are being about as "defensive" as a person can be. Try to learn to accept criticism with a little more dignity.




Quote from: EPd
But if you want this conversation to turn into bashing each other just for fun, please know that I can do that too.

Great, have at it. But I don't think you have the skin for it. Just know that I honestly didn't intend for this to be a "bashing contest"; what I voiced was my opinion that the original photos did nothing to establish any kind of stand-out macro capabilities IMO.




Quote from: EPd
However, for now I would prefer you to pay some respect to the original poster's question and keep your big mouth shut for a while.
EPd

Merry Christmas to you too

I really could care less what you prefer. If you're going to post a photo that attempts to demonstrate excellence, at least post a photo that in some ways captures it.

I repeat my honest opinion that your photo of the arthropod could neither sell for a penny as "art," nor could it be used for field identification purposes, so what (pray tell) do you find redeeming about it?

Jack




.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2008, 05:32:01 AM »
ReplyReply

There's no room here for personal attacks.

Thread closed.

Michael

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad