Why are macro lenses so sharp?

[Stregone]

I think the reason is macro lenses are a niche lens. There's not enough market to bother designing a cheap one and a nice one, so they only make nice ones.

 

[Q.G.]

I think the reason is macro lenses are a niche lens. There's not enough market to bother designing a cheap one and a nice one, so they only make nice ones.

If only that was true...
I have seen some crappy ones in my days. Usually 'third party'.

I'm not sure that close-up really is much of a niche. I think the appeal of close-up lenses is large enough to attract even the casual close-up shooter. Though it will be true that they rather opt for cheaper and simpler thingies, like supplementary lenses.

 

[Ralph Javins]

If only that was true...
I have seen some crappy ones in my days. Usually 'third party'.

I'm not sure that close-up really is much of a niche. I think the appeal of close-up lenses is large enough to attract even the casual close-up shooter. Though it will be true that they rather opt for cheaper and simpler thingies, like supplementary lenses.

Good morning, Q.G.

In looking at some of the better quality supplementary close-up lenses, such as the Canon, I am not sure I would use the term "cheaper."

 

[Q.G.]

Good morning, Q.G.

In looking at some of the better quality supplementary close-up lenses, such as the Canon, I am not sure I would use the term "cheaper."

Yes. You're right!
I forgot about the even not so good, yet extremely expensive Zeiss Proxars too.
So i'll eat my words.

 

[AgX]

I believe both definitions ("primary" and "fixed focal length") are fully correct, which of course can be confusing...

Duncan

You are right.


Q.G.: Have a look at the cine world and how they use the term "prime lens".

 

[dynachrome]

It helps that most macro lenses are not very fast. In some ways comparing a macro lens for an SLR is like comparing an SLR lens with an RF lens. The RF lens doesn't need an auto diaphragm and doesn't need, in most cases, to focus closer than 3 feet. An SLR lens like the Konica 28/1.8 UC Hexanon is fast and has fairly close focusing. A 28/2 RF lens doesn't need to be nearly as large but can't do as much. Some macro lenses, like the 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor or 50/3.5 Zuiko, have floating element designs. They are sharp at all distances. A 50/1.8 AI Nikkor is not going to be much sharper at infinity than either of these lenses but it will be easier to focus in lower light. Some macro lenses do not have a good reputation for being very sharp at infinity. The older compensating Micro Nikkor Auto and 60/2.8 AFD Nikkor come to mind. I like all of the manual focus 55mm Micro Nikkors from the P on and I find them all excellent at infinity. Some purists consider the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors from the P on to be less sharp close up than the compensating models. In general I would say that if the light is good enough I will substitute a macro lens for a general purpose lens of the same focal length. There are some macro lenses as fast as f/2. Unless you are only after selective focus the extra speed of these lenses is mainly for ease of focusing. Very few macro subjects lend themselves to being shot at f/2.

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G.: Have a look at the cine world and how they use the term "prime lens".

It's the thing they put anamorphots (secondaries) and such on.
Film gear makers sell 'variable primes', i.e. zooms.

 

[PanaDP]

It's the thing they put anamorphots (secondaries) and such on.
Film gear makers sell 'variable primes', i.e. zooms.

I want to clear up some details. I'm a camera assistant professionally (TV, commercials, and feature films).

In our world, at least, a prime is any fixed focal length camera lens.

A zoom is a lens that can change focal length smoothly and with infinite variation between the extreme limits. They are extremely heavy and large and not the kind of thing you want to handhold.

A variable prime is not a zoom. It's something different yet; it's like a zoom where you can dial to only certain focal lengths and can't change focal length during a shot. Only a couple were made and they are not very popular because of the size and weight compared to the more versatile zooms to which we have access.

Anamorphics are not secondary lenses. They are an entirely different breed of lenses all to themselves. Anamorphic adapters do exist but I've never seen one on a professional job because of the terrible image quality. There are anamorphic primes and anamorphic zooms, both quite large and heavy. I don't believe any anamorphic variable primes exist.

 

[Q.G.]

Still, and nevertheless: a prime is a primary lens, no matter whether fixed focal length, variable focal length or zoom, on which supplementary, i.e secondary, lenses are attached.
A 'prime' only becomes that if and when a secondary lens is brought into use. Else it's a 'lens'.

I know that this misuse of the word has spread wide enough for even people who know better, like Zeiss, to adopt it. May show that it is acceptable. Definitely shows how powerful a marketing tool the word 'prime' is.
But doesn't change the fact that it is wrong, ignorant of the origin of the term.
Despite its use, it is not a term expressing first rate quality.

 

[lxdude]

Q.G., I have much the same thinking on this as you, and don't use "prime lens" to mean "single focal length lens".

But there are strict, highly accurate definitions for things, and there are more general definitions. "Prime" has entered common speech to mean "single focal length". In context, its meaning is clear. For me, what matters is clarity. You say "prime" is short for "primary". When referring to coupled lenses, I say "primary" and "secondary", and so avoid confusion. While I don't use "prime" in its now more common meaning, it is quicker to say, and I will probably at some point start using it. I first heard "prime" used to distinguish from "zoom", and it was clear that the meaning at that time was "primary". Zooms were used when their functional advantages outweighed their optical disadvantages.

That doesn't mean I don't think there should be standards. I refuse to use substitutions made out of ignorance, like "run the gauntlet", in which a word, "gantlet", is lost, and therefore the very meaning of the sentence is lost. But where only a multiple-word definition for something exists, a single-word definition is probably going to come about, like it or not.

Language evolves, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a not-so-good way. Words gain and lose meanings. I don't see a problem with the new meaning of "prime", as it is hardly essential to describing a coupled set of lenses.

Like the other great lens debate, the pinhole "lens" debate. While a pinhole is in technical definition not a lens, as you pointed out in that discussion, it serves the same image-forming function as a lens, even to producing an inverted image, and so in a broad, general definition of lens, i.e., "a device for forming an image" it is a lens. No confusion in communication arises from that description.

Considering that English has completely opposite meanings for the word "sanction", and a word like "oversight" can have two meanings almost as far opposed, I just can't sweat "prime".

The most technically precise definition of a word is seldom the only one, and a general meaning is more likely to be known than the narrower, precise meaning. I think it's a good idea at times to let people know the precise meaning of a word, but I usually start by saying something like, "In its most precise meaning," or something like that, and I don't press it much after that.

I think everyone here knows what the O.P. meant by "sharp", though technically...

 

[Pumalite]

The best I had for my purposes was the Micro- Nikkor 200mm f/4 and there was no doubt it was a prime. Haven't seen many lately.

 

[Jim Jones]

it is my understanding that many people feel that macro lenses are sharper than lenses intended for general photography.

Is there lens testing data that supports this? . . .

To divert this thread from a discussion of semantics, long ago I did a quick, but critical, comparison of over 30 lenses for 35mm cameras. The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, the 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkor, the Elmar 50mm f/2.8, and the GN Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 were sharper than all others. A Pentax 50mm Macro lens was distinctly less sharp. A Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 was very sharp on-axis, but very poor at the image edges. Fast normal lenses were rarely good for macro- or micro-photography, even when stopped down.

 

[Q.G.]

But there are strict, highly accurate definitions for things, and there are more general definitions. [...]

It's a choice, between maintaining a use of terms that actually conveys an understanding of the things they describe, or allowing popular misunderstandings to divorce the users of the words form the things they no longer describe.

It's indeed like that pinhole lens thing. Call it a lens, and you completely lose all sense of the unique way pinholes produce images.
It was a bit of a shock that it had to be explained - to pinhole photographers, no less - that there is a fundamental difference between how pinholes work and how lenses work. A difference that should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of how and why lenses work, but was (and is) completely lost.

Some call this "just semantics", or "semantic games". They probably don't understand that words are used so that we know what we are talking about, and that when you stop using the right words, you also lose the plot.

I think everyone here knows what the O.P. meant by "sharp", though technically...

True, true.
Slightly different, though. Not just a matter of using the wrong word (as it is with the prime thingy, and the pinhole thingy), but of using a single term to apply to a very complex matter.

Mind you, i'm not that deluded that i think i can change the world. Doesn't mean that i will not give a shout if and when it is called for.

My next contribution will be about the term "macrophotography", which is somewhat of the opposite of what people think it is.