macro versus non macro

[tballphoto]

Is there a genuine difference between macro and non macro image taking with a macro capable lens?

i TOOK images with a 35 -70mm macro lens, at some images they were sharp but dark on the negative. I mean, black was completely black and no seperation between multiple black objects. But on "lighter" appearing frames that were slightly out of focus there was no seperation issue with black on black..

 

[Dan Fromm]

Yes. General purpose lenses -- never engraved "macro" -- are optimized for distant subjects, don't perform as well at their close focusing distance as real -- see below -- macro lenses.

Lenses engraved "macro" are of two types. Real macro lenses are optimized for near subjects, may not perform as well with distant subjects as they do with near ones. This was the case for the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. Popular Photography magazine never published a test of that lens. I once asked Norman Rothschild of PP why not. He explained that at some apertures the lens didn't meet PP"s minimum standard for image quality at infinity. PP didn't want to offend advertisers by publishing negative reviews of their products, so ... 55 and 60 mm f/2.8 MicroNikkors have floating elements to improve infinity performance. FWIW, I was happy with my 55/3.5's performance at all distances.

Fake macro lenses are general purpose lenses with longer than usual focusing helicoids to allow close focusing. That's probably your 35-70 zoom lens.

I expect that you use your 35-70 on a 35mm SLR with TTL metering. If so, you shouldn't have exposure problems. And negative films, both b/w and color, should have enough exposure latitude to cope with loss of illumination at the film plane due to magnification. So I have no idea what caused your problem.

 

[gone]

What you're describing sounds more like a focus and metering issue. Macro just refers to the ability to get in close.

 

[C-130 Nav]

Unfortunately, we do not have enough information from your post to evaluate what you’re observing in your images to correlate that to macro or non-macro lens use. The other posters do bring up some great points to consider.

in regards to macro vs. non-macro lenses, remember that a macro lenses have smaller/shorter minimum focus distances vice non-macro lenses. Also, the closer you are to you subject when taking your picture, the narrower your depth of field will be assuming the same aperture. Therefore, it is very likely much of a scene shot at a close focal distance will be out of focus unless the subject is a near-flat plane. I find using normal lenses for traditional macro subjects (flowers, bugs, etc.) produces a more pleasing depth of field zone when using film, especially since post processing tricks don’t exist to counteract this tendency. Granted, the image magnification will not be 1:1 like many macro lenses but good glass should afford decent enlargement sizes.

 

[AgX]

Fake macro lenses are general purpose lenses with longer than usual focusing helicoids to allow close focusing. That's probably your 35-70 zoom lens.

Zoom lenses inherently offer the ability to move a lens group to achieve close focus. This was extensively used by manufacturers. To my understanding at all zoom lenses with a macro setting this feature is applied and not an extended barrel.

 

[AgX]

The malexposure of the OP I cannot relate to the lens being macro or not.

With lenses which focus at the macro range by extra barrel extension there indeed will be a variation in exposure at the macro range. But this will be an underexposure (unless corrected).

 

[tballphoto]

the lens is a vivitar 35-70mm 1/2.8-3.8 MC macro focusing zoom 55mm diameter. that lens is what is giving me fits.

my other lens that i got with the camera is a vivitar 75-205 with a macro function that gives a rather nice frame filling photo of a standard 1 switch electrical switch at about 3 foot distance

 

[Dan Fromm]

Zoom lenses inherently offer the ability to move a lens group to achieve close focus.

Interesting if true. Why do you believe this?

I have cine cameras with integral zoom lenses that don't do this. Also several c-mount zoom lenses that don't do this.

 

[AgX]

I did not say that all these lenses got this feature, but at 35mm still camera lenses this was most common at least from the 70s onwards. I also got cine lenses with this feature.

 

[benveniste]

Is there a genuine difference between macro and non macro image taking with a macro capable lens?

i TOOK images with a 35 -70mm macro lens, at some images they were sharp but dark on the negative. I mean, black was completely black and no separation between multiple black objects. But on "lighter" appearing frames that were slightly out of focus there was no seperation issue with black on black..

At one point, manufacturers were slapping the label "macro" on any zoom lens which had any sort of close focus setting, even if it was in the 0.2x range. I don't know which 35-70mm you have, so I can't say for sure that's the case with your lens, but I suspect it's primarily designed for general "non-macro" image taking. What you are describing could be an exposure issue of some sort, or it could be a lack of contrast, possibly due to haze or fogging.

Many "purpose-built" macro lenses do allow focus to infinity, but since so much of the focus "throw" is consumed in the close-up range, nailing focus at longer ranges can be challenging for both humans and autofocus systems. it's far from impossible -- I've used macro lenses in the 90mm to 105mm range for portraiture for decades. But it can slow me down a bit.

 

[abruzzi]

When looking at fixed mount lenses like 35mm SLR or medium format SLR, I think macro lenses have two specific features. The first is a mechanism to focus closely, i.e. a longer helicoid in the case of macro primes, or in the case of zoom lenses with a macro setting, maybe some other optical tricks, as mentiond by AgX. The second is the optics are usually optimised for close focusing, as opposed to infinity. This depends on the lens though. A 35-70 zoom that does macro at one end doesn't likely have much optimization for large reproduction ratios, but a dedicated 100m macro or 50mm macro lens, will probably have those benefits. You can use any lens to satisfy the first feature by using extension tubes, but the second feature is either there or not. For view cameras, the first feature doesn't exist, so you just have the optics (and hopefully a really long bellows.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not a macro problem. It is a use of the lens and exposure problem.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I'll fancy some educated guessing:

mean, black was completely black and no seperation between multiple black objects

Exposure problem, more light needed...

But on "lighter" appearing frames that were slightly out of focus there was no seperation issue with black on black..

...which appears you have given already, but by using a slower shutter speed to get more light, you introduced a slight motion blur.

In Macro photography the movement gets amplified just the same way as with shooting long focal lengths (max zoom), one must be aware of it.

There are easy ways to fix it:
- More light. Macro is hungry for light and photography is about nothing but light. More of it will allow you to use faster shutter speeds and have more details in focus by closing down the aperture.
- Use tripod to ensure minimum vibrations. As said before, motion gets amplified = becomes blurry fast. If tripod isn't available and you have a metric shitton of light, you can risk handheld. Just remember to use fastest shutter speed available from the available range.
- Use Mirror Lock-Up and Self-timer if available to reduce vibrations further. Tripod mandatory for this, of course.

As with all lenses, to reduce motion blur the old rule of thumb applies - set your shutter speed 2x the value of focal length. Meaning - if using a 70mm lens for macro, minimal shutter speed shouldn't be lower than 1/125 or equivalent. And with 200mm - no less than 1/500, ideally faster to freeze any motion.

Take this into consideration, reshoot and report your results! : )

 

[jtk]

REAL macro lenses yeild flat focus or a focus that wraps around subject.

 

[Dan Fromm]

REAL macro lenses yeild flat focus or a focus that wraps around subject.

Huh? Both? Flat and wrapped?

 

[AgX]

I'll fancy some educated guessing:


Exposure problem, more light needed...

Lesser light. As the images were dark on the negative.

 

[jtk]

Huh? Both? Flat and wrapped?

Dan, note the word "or" in my post. I don't think ANY zoom is "macro" for that reason. Reversal of conventional lenses makes them close to true macro.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, note the word "or" in my post. I don't think ANY zoom is "macro" for that reason. Reversal of conventional lenses makes them close to true macro.

Well, if you stop to think about it for a minute, you'll realize that nearly all lenses are designed to put a sharp image on a flat piece of film or sensor. And if you think a little longer, you'll realize that a lens whose field in the subject space is curved to fit a subject won't give the desired result for other subjects. Photographers just can't win, the best they can do is make a good compromise with reality.

As for reversal, most general purpose lenses -- truly symmetrical ones, such as dialyte type process lenses, are the big exception -- are optimized for a large subject in front of the lens and a small sensitized surface behind it. Big front, small behind. To get the most out of these lenses' optimization at magnifications greater than 1:1, with a small subject in front and a relatively large sensitized surface behind the lens, we have to reverse the lens. This has nothing to do with "macro," whatever that means, and everything to do with getting best performance from a lens given magnification.

 

[jtk]

Well, if you stop to think about it for a minute, you'll realize that nearly all lenses are designed to put a sharp image on a flat piece of film or sensor. And if you think a little longer, you'll realize that a lens whose field in the subject space is curved to fit a subject won't give the desired result for other subjects. Photographers just can't win, the best they can do is make a good compromise with reality.

As for reversal, most general purpose lenses -- truly symmetrical ones, such as dialyte type process lenses, are the big exception -- are optimized for a large subject in front of the lens and a small sensitized surface behind it. Big front, small behind. To get the most out of these lenses' optimization at magnifications greater than 1:1, with a small subject in front and a relatively large sensitized surface behind the lens, we have to reverse the lens. This has nothing to do with "macro," whatever that means, and everything to do with getting best performance from a lens given magnification.

I think you've just agreed with me.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Lesser light. As the images were dark on the negative.

Thanks and true, missed that.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I think you've just agreed with me.

I don't think so.