Jump to content
MPC

Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm

Recommended Posts

The closest focus with this lens is 13". That is why you get the 1:4 magnification. I don't see that as much of a problem as I don't often use the 60mm inside 13" anyway. I think this is measured from the lens mount not the front of the lens anyway, so its really close.

 

The closest focussing distance is the distance given from the object to the CCD.

 

 

About the magnification ratio: you can measure this by taking an image of a ruler at maximum tele position at closest focussing distance: if the maximum width of your image is 36 mm, you have a 1:1 (size of a fullframe/film camera) In DX format you wil have only 24 mm of the ruler in your image with a 1:1 lens (24 mm is the width of a DX sensor) The magnification ratio compared to 36 mm film would be 1.5:1.

 

So, if a lens does 1:4.4 it means that the smallest full frame subject can be 4.4*36= 158 mm for a full frame sensor/film. In DX format the smallest full frame object can be 157:1.5=105 mm with this 1:4.4 lens. In my point of view 1:4.4 isn't really applicable for macro work.

 

Furthermore, as far as i know, you can't compare the a 60 mm macro with a regular 60 mm, since a macro lens is differently contructed. Even if you focus at the same distance, the object size is different. The same is also true with a 15 mm wideangle and a 15 mm fisheye: the fisheye will cover about 180 degrees diagonal, while the wideangle will cover 'only' approx. 100 degrees, also due to construction/correction diffences.

 

cheers, Udo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my point of view 1:4.4 isn't really applicable for macro work.

 

Ok, in the strict sense of 1:1 clearly 1:4 isn't true macro. But I can't imagine anyone using the 60mm underwater at 1:1 for fish portraits. Given that the 60mm is 3.2" long itself and there is at least 1" from the lens mount to the CCD and at least 1" from the port to the front of the lens this is all at least 5.5" you would need to be 2.5" from your subject to get 1:1 (perhaps a bit farther due to flat port magnification).

The 105mm is much better for 1:1 macro.

 

For fish portraits with the 60mm I'm usually 1-3' from the subject in order to properly light the subject and give it some distance. In this case you are already at 1:4 or greater magnification. Its not "Macro" but its how you shoot fish portraits. You use a "macro" lens because of its close-er focus (most older zooms close focus is at several feet), superior sharpness large aperture focus speed and simplicity.

 

Furthermore, as far as i know, you can't compare the a 60 mm macro with a regular 60 mm, since a macro lens is differently contructed.

 

This doesn't seem to be the case. I checked the angle of view of several telephoto zooms with ranges up to 105mm with macro lenses and theiir angles of view are the same. There were none with 60mm as their min or max but comparing the 60mm with zooms 55mm their FOV scales about linearly with the 60mm. I agree this is true for FE lenses but appearently not for macros.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, as far as i know, you can't compare the a 60 mm macro with a regular 60 mm, since a macro lens is differently contructed. Even if you focus at the same distance, the object size is different. The same is also true with a 15 mm wideangle and a 15 mm fisheye: the fisheye will cover about 180 degrees diagonal, while the wideangle will cover 'only' approx. 100 degrees, also due to construction/correction diffences.

 

Fisheye lenses are different because they are based on different mapping / projection types (equisolid or equidistance, not rectilinear). However, this is not the case with macro lenses. Macro lenses deliver the same field of view as any non Macro rectilinear lens with the same focal length. They don’t have any different type of image mapping. Only difference is that different focus adjustments slightly affect field of view. But the difference is so small, it can be neglected. You may have a look at manufactures lens specs as well. A 50mm standard prime and 50mm macro lens feature same field of view in the specs. In other words: The same equation related to focal length / field of view applies to macro lenses. Nothing different here.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, apparently i was wrong with difference of angle between macro- and prime lenses. But nevertheless, if you do macrophotography here in the Netherlands, where visibility is poor, you have to be able to come very, very close to your subject because of poor visibility. A 105 mm here would be useless, since you'll mainly collect dust in your image.

 

cheers, Udo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you want to photgraph the lobsters' nosehairs.

 

In Holland I find the 60 mm is sometimes too long due the bad visibility. a 40mm macro prime would be useful in our waters. I have tried a standard 35 mm but it will not focus as close as the 60.

 

Kees.

 

Nice ones in "Onderwatersport" btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if Pactrick was referring the Sigma 24-70 Macro instead... This is the lens I have, not the 28-70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is the 28-70MM and didn't mention you Ryan :blink: It has raised a lot of comments and would just like to say in my opinion and from someone who uses it most days, the 28-70 Sigma for me far out does the 60mm, I would never dream of a 60 now I have the 28-70, you can do far more with it and as for macro I don't think you can get better than the 105 at the moment, stack close-ups on it and teleconverters and you have an incredible, versatile lens for small to really really small creatures.

 

Why I like the 28-70:

 

1, It's the fastest lens I have to focus, rapid and I mean rapid, the second you touch the shutter it's locked.

 

2, Fantastic in low light, I use it all the time at dusk and night dives, sometimes I can only just see the subject it's so dark and the lens has already locked focus.

 

3, It's a 2.8f throughout the range, does not extended beyond the end of the lens so a simple 105 port will do.

 

4, $329! you can't get better than that.

 

5, Great for turtles down to diamond Blennies.

 

But like I say this is only my opinion and until you try it you wont know what you've been missing out on, a great lens to have in your kit.

 

Grouper just under 3ft (1Meter) in size, shot with Sigma 28-70mm at 28, slight crop.

 

large.jpg

 

Diamond Blenny inside Giant Anenome, over all size about 6 square inches, shot at 50mm Sigma 28-70 no crop.

 

medium.jpg

 

And lastly a simple Damselfish, about 2 inches in size, shot with Sigma 28-70 at 70mm, no crop.

 

small.jpg

 

Should say shot with D2X which will probibly make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all beautiful shots; but I would count none of them as a Macro shot. There have been a lot of discussions about what is macro. Generally it is considered a ratio of 1:3 or better. For these type of shots the 60 macro is one of the best lenses available. I shoot it all the time in So. California waters.

 

Many S. Ca. divers prefer the 105 macro. It has the same 1:1 max mag but a longer working distance. Makes it easier to shoot 1:1 subjects and very small skittish fish. I prefer the 60 because it allows me to shoot larger subjects but still get the 1:1 shot. Recently I have been using it with the flip mate macro lens.

 

For a "classic" macro course I would not consider the 28-70 described above as adequate for teaching macro UW photography.

 

As you can see from the above discussions everyones idea of what is macro differs. I would say for the water conditions and type of shooting done by kriptap he seems to have a very good lens. I would not want that lens in California waters or if I was obsessed with shooting small nudibranchs (you know who you are). For those shots the 105 or 60 macro lenses are the best. At least until the AF-S VR 105 becomes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 28-70 or such is ideal for the diver who shoots mainly fishes and is happy to get close and a bit wide. For those who want to get really, really close, or really, really wide, there are other good choices. Personally I'm holding out for a small and light, sharp, sub-$500 AF 10.5mm-200mm f1.8 macro (2:1) zoom that will work in a compact dome port. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I think the Sigma 28-70 has been replaced by the 24-70. I saw Alex's lens and it is a bit smaller than my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 but otherwise the same.

 

I like the 24-70 (used it on FF last week to shoot shark faces) a lot. It's not a macro lens at 70mm but it's a good all-round fish photography lens. I think most of the great fish photography we've seen from Alex was either taken w/ this lens or the 105.

 

The Sigma is a great lens because it's longest extension is when it's at 28mm and it's shortest when it's at 70mm. This means that it doesn't vignette at either 28 or 70mm

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...