Camera Labs

If I were to get another lens, this is most probably my first choice. Although Im quite satisfied with the bokeh performance of my two lenses, I would like to know whether its worth it to get 1 of those.

Thanks,
SnS

P.S.: I did check dslrtips.com and cameralabs.com for some reviews but the lens I would like a review on isn't there. I don't blame Gordon! Im very sure he's trying his best.

_________________

.: Sony DT 18-70mm :: Sony 75-300mm :: Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 :: Minolta 24mm f/2.8 :: Sony 50mm f/1.8 :: Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye :: SLIK Pro 330DX :: Manfrotto 496RC2 :.


my flickr

It's not really the bokeh that you buy a macro lens for...

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/

Not that I want to argue(to put it nicer, debate) but personally I like lots of bokeh in my macro shots. Not everyday we see a nice non-studio-taken macro shot with absolutely no bokeh.

SnS

_________________

.: Sony DT 18-70mm :: Sony 75-300mm :: Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 :: Minolta 24mm f/2.8 :: Sony 50mm f/1.8 :: Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye :: SLIK Pro 330DX :: Manfrotto 496RC2 :.


my flickr

You are mistaken.

Macro lenses will have a short depth of field because of the magnification.

It comes with the territory, but what you've originally said doesn't quite justify the idea of a macro lens. You buy one for the abilities of magnification and the short focusing distance rather purely for bokeh. You should be looking for a larger aperture.

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/

SnS I think what you are looking for is a smaller depth of field or in other words, a more blurred background?

What you need is a faster lens, not a macro lens, so any lens with a larger aperture would fulfill this requirement. A macro lens would produce a smaller depth of field but this is also because of the magnification and like Photoj said, you wouldn't buy one just because of the DOF. Not to mention the fact that all your shots will need to be taken at higher magnifications.

I would recommend a 50mm f/1.8. They're generally cheap and I don't think you can go wrong with one even if you don't need the f/1.8 aperture.

As to the quality of the bokeh....thats a different matter altogether.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

Hi Graham,

I agree with most of the above but I'm not sure that "all your shots will need to be taken at higher magnifications" is quite what you meant to say. Granted macro lenses can reach high magnifications when focussed on subjects close to the lens but a 100mm focal length macro lens focussed at infinity provides the same field of view as an ordinary 100mm focal length prime focussed at infinity.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Whoops, yea I didn't quite mean "all your shots".

What I did mean was that, to use 50mm as an example, an f/2.8 macro would have a larger DOF than a f/1.8 lens at the same focusing distance. Macro lenses appear to have a smaller DOF because of the higher magnifications at which they are able to focus.

Would I be correct in saying that?

_________________
Graham
Flickr

.
It's a minefield, isn't it.

My favourite resource on this subject is Understanding Depth of Field over at the Cambridge in Colour Tutorials site. As you can see from the Depth of Field Calculator near the bottom of the page the factors which affect DoF are

• Camera type (crop factor)
• Selected aperture
• Actual lens focal length
• Focus distance to subject

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Thanks for that Bob and I apologize to SnS if my first post was misleading.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

Thanks every1 for teaching me! I learned quite a few things from this thread

I apologise for being unclear. Due to my knowledge(or rather, the lack of it) of photography, I was not very concise in my justification of a macro lens. Today was the first time I heard of the 'magnification' thing, and hopefully not the last. Yeah I hope to learn more about taking beautiful macro shots, as seen in magazines and websites all the time. Of course, I know you need more than just a good lens to take great shots.

SnS

_________________

.: Sony DT 18-70mm :: Sony 75-300mm :: Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 :: Minolta 24mm f/2.8 :: Sony 50mm f/1.8 :: Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye :: SLIK Pro 330DX :: Manfrotto 496RC2 :.


my flickr