Why are macro lenses so sharp?

[darinwc]

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?

Are macro lenses designed more for sharpness while sacrificing contrast and other variables?

Or perhaps is it the simple fact that they are not made at large apertures?

 

[keithwms]

Many macro lenses are corrected for flatness of field at ~1:1 and may also have a floating element or be otherwise corrected to improve edge sharpness at close focus. Also these lenses are typically constructed to permit close focus even without extension tubes - not really an optical advantage but a useful convenience.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

As Keith says, macro optics are optimised for close focusing all the way to lifesize, and many of today's lenses have aspherical, fluorite (CaF2) and/or ELD glass that virtually eliminates chroma (e.g. colour fringing) and distortion. I've used a 180mm macro for portraits some years ago but every fold, bulge, wrinkle and spot was visible on the subject's face — an application out of the ballpark but demonstrating obvious strengths in refined detail. A lot of the outcome at high magnification photography depends on the skill of the photographer, as macro is something which can take years to refine, but all the results will be impressive in their own right.

 

[darinwc]

Hmm I guess I should have explained my question a little better..

I understand that a lens designed for macro work will be better when doing close-up work because that is what it is designed for.

What I dont get is that how a macro lens will be better than a standard lens for distance work.
Wouldn't a lens designed for distance work be better than a macro lens?

 

[df cardwell]

It seems your problem isn't with Photography, but with 'how some people think'.

Good luck.

In the meantime, here is a neat story about how how Nikon evolved their 55 Micro lens.
It is a very good read. http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n25_e.htm

As for the development of macro lens, they have existed for a long, long time. The Micro Tessars, for instance,
were developed to bridge the use of a microscope (using an objective and eyepiece to form an image, and not designed to project directly to film) and the use of a camera. An old concept of a Macro lens was to image directly on film, with a total magnification on the film less than 25x and more than 1/3 x. And, yes, each lens was designed to work optimally within a narrow magnification range, at maximum aperture. (see: numerical aperture)

Just like an enlarger lens works best in a narrow magnification range, and deteriorates relative to it's purpose, beyond the range.

Will a lens designed to work close up outperform a general purpose lens at infinity ? No. Where the transition takes place depends on the actual lenses. Companies with strong performance in technical photography and microscopy are good sources for real data. Nikon. Zeiss. Leica. Olympus.

Check Zeiss if you really want the answer that will make you work.

 

[darinwc]

Maybe I should ask: to those of you who prefer a macro lens for normal photography.. why?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe I should ask: to those of you who prefer a macro lens for normal photography.. why?

How can I properly answer that? I have a 28mm - 200mm macro zoom and a 28mm - 300mm macro zoom.

I think you need to restate the question to be about dedicated macros only. Otherwise, people who have macro zooms will color your answer and then you will not have a black & white answer ==> only shades of grays and lots of colored answers.

Steve

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Strictly speaking, a macro is a prime, so it will have obvious strengths of one (though we're not going into zoom-vs-prime here ), in addition to my earlier remark, [that] every fold, bulge, wrinkle and spot [will be] visible on the subject's face — or anything else you photograph!Canon's 180mm L-series macro is a gem (and a heavy gem!) and frequently seen on street-shooter outfits. There are many others of course, I'm just pointing out one I've used on trial.

 

[ic-racer]

The MFT curves for the Zeiss Makro Planar 60mm and 120mm lenses are pretty good. I'd say those two are my sharpest rollfilm lenses. I am not sure, but I suspect the slightly-longer-than-normal length of these lenses gives them a larger sweet spot in the center, so the MTF curves stay up way out to the edge of the 43mm and 80mm circles respectively.

 

[keithwms]

Maybe I should ask: to those of you who prefer a macro lens for normal photography.. why?

There is a class of macro lenses that I use for normal photography: process lenses. The apo-corrected process lenses, in particular. These are optimized for macro reproductions, but... I find them very useful for infrared because there is no focus shift. So I have a few apo nikkor process lenses just for that purpose. Some people say you shouldn't use them for landscape because they're not optimized for infinity focus. But as usual, people say one thing, and I try another, and the Earth continues to spin on axis.

I used to love my Nikon 105 macro for shooting rowing events for no greater reason than it had a deeply recessed front element... less spray on the lens! But I did like it as a short tele too. I like my 105/1.8 more though.

I have the macro version of the Nikon 80-200 and I love it for everything. Sweet lens. I guess it has a slightly closer near point than the other 80-200 lenses, hence the name. I am always happy to be able to move in closer.

I use my Mamiya 80/4 as an all 'round lens, but then perhaps I should mention that for me, "all 'round" means that I will probably be on my knees half the time, chasing bugs and seeds and blossoms all 'round. For "normal" focusing distances this lens certainly doesn't offend and I also adapt it to my 35mm bodies for that reason.

Check out Martin Schoeller's "Big Heads" which were mostly shot, I think, with a Mamiya 140mm macro lens. Too clinical? You decide. I think the clinical lighting was a big part of the look. I do find it amusing that he (gasp) didn't shoot his subjects with a portrait lens.

Use whatever gets the job done for you.

 

[Q.G.]

Strictly speaking, a macro is a prime, [...]

And while we're speaking strictly, a zoom is a "prime" too.

But neither zoom nor fixed lens can be called a "prime" meaningfully, unless you put a secondary (like a close-up lens) on it.


I don't know that macro-lenses are inherently better than non-macro lenses, and i don't think they are.
Some may be, yes. But then, aren't some non-macro lenses better than some other non-macro-lenses too?

 

[richard ide]

Sorry but I beg to differ. A prime lens is a lens of single focal length designed with the parameters for that focal length. A zoom lens can be high quality; but there are design sacrifices involved, which will lower the image quality even though those factors may only be noticed in a very careful analysis of the optical path with scientific instrumentation. The addition of a secondary lens (close-up) reduces image quality. An add on lens just makes the lens more convenient to use. I.E. without bellows.
I have used many process lenses for taking and enlarging. Examining a big enlargement, I have spotted what I thought were artifacts which were on the negative, but only visible with a microscope.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Oh Lord, here we go...again.
Thank heavens those pesky "design sacrifices involved, which will lower the image quality[...]" are not readily visible on my precious framed Ilfochromes — many routinely shot with a 17-40 zoom, or they'd probably not sell, and I'd be living off a boiled egg for a fortnight! Perish the thought...

 

[richard ide]

Give me a break. Do some research on optics and then respond. Not worth getting in to an argument with anyone.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, true, Richard, we all need a break from it!

 

[darkosaric]

When I got my 55/3.5 micro nikkor I was wondering also is it better than normal 50mm/1.8 at infinity, and I did two shots on same film with those 2 lenses at 5.6 - and I see no difference. Both are perfect.

 

[Q.G.]

Sorry but I beg to differ. A prime lens is a lens of single focal length designed with the parameters for that focal length.

"Prime", short for "primary", indicates that the lens is the main taking lens. The term is used to distinguish it from the "secondary", a lens attached to the prime, such as close-up lenses, anamorphots, etc.

It has nothing to do with being "of single focal length". Nor with quality.

 

[Fotoguy20d]

I have Canon's 100mm f2.8 macro (anyone want o buy it?) and their 70-200 f2.8L IS. Except for the obvious difference (ie 1:1 macro work) the "prime" has no advantage over the zoom L - I think the zoom is still the better lens at 100mm (and has the advantage of covering 70-200 with incredible sharpness).

Dan

 

[frobozz]

"Prime", short for "primary", indicates that the lens is the main taking lens. The term is used to distinguish it from the "secondary", a lens attached to the prime, such as close-up lenses, anamorphots, etc.

It has nothing to do with being "of single focal length". Nor with quality.

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

Duncan

 

[Q.G.]

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

I don't.
So i'm not confused.

 

[keithwms]

Oh Lord, here we go...again.

Yep :rolleyes: but note that there is an "ignore thread" button...

 

[jp498]

I have used:
Old 55 Micro Nikkor AI converted
Sigma 50 2.8 AF Macro
60mm Micro Nikkor AF-D
50 1.4 Nikkor AF-D
50 1.8 Nikkor AF-D
50 1.2 Nikkor AIS

The old 55 micro was pretty general purpose and I didn't have anything to compare it too except zooms. It did a good job at many magnifications. I have some real nice macro photos printed on cibachrome hanging on my wall to show for it.

The Sigma macro is what I've used for the past 15 years. It does a fantastic job for it's intended purpose but isn't that sharp for 8'-infinity range work compared to almost any other prime lens.

The 60 AF-D micro does a fantastic job for macro quality as well, but has nasty bokeh IMHO which would discourage my usage when other lenses are available. (double lines for out of focus branches, etc..)

The normal non-macro lenses.. The 50 mm nikkors are great at their whole focusing range, which is of course not macro. The 1.2 was good and bad for short DOF stuff. Very tough to focus accurately for short-medium distances, but nice results when you got it right. I'd love to have something like this in AFS now. The 1.4d and 1.8d are both very good bang for the buck if you don't need real close up macro.

So there's a lot more to it than "is it sharp". which parts of the focusing range are sharp, which lenses render things out of focus to your liking, which generation of optics do you want?

 

[BobD]

Maybe I should ask: to those of you who prefer a macro lens for normal photography.. why?

So I can walk around with one lens and shoot stuff close up or far away.

 

[Excalibur2]

So I can walk around with one lens and shoot stuff close up or far away.

As most MF lenses are cheap, you can use "horses for courses" for choice to suit the subject being photographed. And sharpness (if wanted), distortion and bokeh has to be considered..... But you knew all this anyway

 

[df cardwell]

:munch:

Lots of pros flocked to the 55 Micro Nikkor back in the '70s because it focused quickly. A small turn produced a fast change in focus,
and in use was easier to focus accurately than the 50/2 or 50/1.4.

It was a great tool if you did reportage or shot for feature sections.
Still is, actually !