Fuji Macro

dibbly dobbler said:
Went 'the full monty' on this one with f22, and autofocus (18-135 @135 with Rynox 250) - I can't detect much difference in sharpness but you definitely get a bit more depth of field :)
Click to expand...

And one of the things about using small apertures is that you may be able to recover some of the detail that has has been blurred by difraction, especially apparently if you use deconvolution sharpening (so I've read). It is obviously a matter of personal taste how far to take these adjustments, but here is an example of an adjusted version (this is an animated gif which I hope you will see flipping back and forth between the posted and adjusted versions).

The adjustments included some (on reflection too aggressive I think) shadow raising and that has done odd things to the raised shadows in a few places in terms of colour and noise. However, bear in mind that I was working from the posted JPEG version. This might not be such a problem if working with a raw file.


NOT MY IMAGE - dibbly dobbler Forest Shield Bug Nymph - Animated comparison with adjusted version by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks a lot Nick - that’s very interesting. Don’t think I got the pp quite right and there is definitely more detail in your version. I sharpened the RAW only - but maybe some ‘unsharp mask’ could have been added also? Always wary of overdoing it!

Cheers, Mike.
Click to expand...

Worth trying more sharpening. Don't let the possibility of going OTT put you off trying it. If you don't like the result you can tone it down. In particular look out for sharpening halos; these shouldn't be visible at the intended viewing size. They may well be visible when looking closer, which is why I post my images at the intended viewing size rather than full size, so you can't look closer to see any nastiness that is lurking "under the surface" (not just halos).
 
Thanks Nick :)

Yes - autofocus. Needed a bit of luck as they were wriggling about a bit but was chuffed to get the eyes sharp. Yes - 18-135 + Raynox 250 seems optimum for moderately small stuff (I think it gives just more than 1:1) - I also have a 150 so may get a stepup ring at some point to allow for stacking but it's not something I would do very often I think.

I had a play with sharpening but still not cracked it yet - I typically sharpen the RAW file in Camera Raw (sharpening = 80-100 with radius = 1) but then if I try to add more (eg 'unsharp mask') in Photoshop it just looks rubbish. I also tried 'Sharpener Pro' which comes as part of Nik Collection but wasn't really sure what I was doing and the results looked even worse! Actually the one I liked the most was the jpeg :LOL:. Bit more 'test and learn' needed there I think.

Flash was with my little Nissin I40 on ETTL mode - diffused by a mini softbox with a couple of layers of packing foam :)

Thanks again for the help and encouragement - it's appreciated :)
 
Hi All.

Right - I went a bit mad and bought an 80mm macro. Wonderful lens - pin sharp, 1:1 macro, great example, but... I am really not seeing much difference to what I can get out of my old setup (ie 18-135 + Raynox)

See below - both shot at 1/180, f16, iso200 with diffused flash - even zooming in really close I can't see much difference... opinions welcome?


18-135mm Test Shot by Mike Smith, on Flickr


80mm Test Shot by Mike Smith, on Flickr
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Hi All.

Right - I went a bit mad and bought an 80mm macro. Wonderful lens - pin sharp, 1:1 macro, great example, but... I am really not seeing much difference to what I can get out of my old setup (ie 18-135 + Raynox)

See below - both shot at 1/180, f16, iso200 with diffused flash - even zooming in really close I can't see much difference... opinions welcome?
Click to expand...

When shooting with small apertures It does not make a great deal of difference what lens arrangement you use - diffraction tends to even things out (at least as far as detail is concerned) by dragging all lens arrangements down to a similar level (because the effects of diffraction become the dominant factor with small apertures).

That was one of the major puzzles I came across as documented in various places in my journey thread. and it is explained in some detail in the Joseph James Equivalence article, summarised in this short passage: "As the DOF deepens, all systems asymptotically lose detail, and by f/32 on FF (f/22 on APS-C, f/16 on mFT -- 4/3), the differences in resolution between systems is trivial, regardless of the lens, sensor size, or pixel count."

So if two different lens arrangements (like your 80mm macro lens and your 18-135+Raynox) are used on the same camera for the same scene at the same small aperture I would not expect to see much difference.

As it happens, I can see a difference between your two versions: I think the 80mm macro version has greater depth of field.


NOT MY IMAGE - Mike Smith 80 vs 18-135+Raynox by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I suspect this is largely because the two versions were not captured using the same aperture. They did both use the same "nominal aperture" of f/16, but for the macro lens the effective (actual) aperture is given by the (approximate) formula

Effective aperture = Nominal aperture * ( 1 + magnification )

I don't know what the magnification was, but for example if the magnification had been 0.5X, the effective aperture would have been

f/ ( 16 * ( 1 + 0.5)) = f/24.

For the other version the effective aperture would have been f/16, because close-up lenses don't change the effective aperture.

Depth of field doubles for a two stop decrease in aperture. It increases by around 40% for a one stop decrease in aperture. This would be enough to be noticeable.

In summary, if you use small apertures I would not expect to see much difference between the two setups. However, if you use larger apertures I would expect the macro lens to show greater detail than the close-up lens, and possible other image quality benefits such as improved clarity. That is (one of the reasons) why I use a macro lens for botanical subjects, for which I don't often use very small apertures. On the other hand as you know I use a small sensor camera for medium sized invertebrates with flash, because I use minimum aperture and in terms of image quality it doesn't make any difference what optics I use, so I use the setup that I find handles best for that type of subject matter, and that is my small sensor bridge camera.
 
Great reply Nick - thanks very much indeed!

So it's an interesting little conundrum - I will almost always be shooting smaller apertures so the zoom + Raynox setup will be roughly the same in terms of sharpness to the 80mm but taking into account the effective aperture I should be getting a *lot* more depth of field as I generally shoot at around 1:1 - that make sense?

I did try shooting along a ruler at about 45 degrees and the macro did seem to have more dof but I thought I must be imagining it!

One small point - I get that the effective aperture effect does not happen for zoom lenses but what defines a 'macro lens' exactly - 1:1 only ? or would a prime which gives 1:2 get the benefit also (Fuji has a 60mm prime 'macro' which does this)?
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Great reply Nick - thanks very much indeed!

So it's an interesting little conundrum - I will almost always be shooting smaller apertures so the zoom + Raynox setup will be roughly the same in terms of sharpness to the 80mm but taking into account the effective aperture I should be getting a *lot* more depth of field as I generally shoot at around 1:1 - that make sense?
Click to expand...

At 1:1, for any particular nominal (as set on the camera/lens) aperture, you will get roughly twice the depth of field with the macro lens compared to the zoom + Raynox.

However, you will also get some extra loss of detail with the macro lens because you will be using an effective (actual) aperture that is two stops smaller than the zoom + Raynox aperture; and like depth of field, the amount of diffraction depends on the effective aperture - smaller effective aperture, more diffraction.

dibbly dobbler said:
One small point - I get that the effective aperture effect does not happen for zoom lenses ...
Click to expand...

Hold on, it is not the fact that it is a zoom lens that matters, it is the fact that the magnification is created using a close-up lens. For a zoom lens, used by itself or for example with extension tubes, the effective aperture is as per the "1 + magnification" formula, just like for a macro lens.

dibbly dobbler said:
but what defines a 'macro lens' exactly - 1:1 only ? or would a prime which gives 1:2 get the benefit also (Fuji has a 60mm prime 'macro' which does this)?
Click to expand...

So it has nothing to do with whether a lens is or isn't a macro lens (which is a bit fortunate, as the definition of "macro" can be a bit controversial in some quarters :) ).
 
dibbly dobbler said:
ok - so I went (literally!) out for a field test as the rain finally stopped results as below... first is with the 80mm and the second my best effort with the 18-135 + Raynox

I do think there is more dof with the 80mm as predicted - any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Difficult (for me) to draw any conclusions about the size of the dof. It looks like the magnifications and/or the subjects' sizes are different, and the angle of the subject looks different too. Also, the plane of focus may be nearer for the 18-135+Raynox shot.
 
Last edited:
dibbly dobbler said:
Here's another with the 80mm + Raynox 150


Fly macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Looks good to me.

How is the autofocus with the 80mm (with and without the Raynox 150)? Although you can get more DOF with the macro lens there may be a downside in terms of autofocus not being so good. That depends on the particular kit combinations. For my kit, autofocus is significantly better (as in not being subject to hunting) with the zoom + close-up lens setups compared to macro lens setups. YMMV of course.
 
Finally something interesting to shoot! Not been much on the go up here (Edinburgh) at all lately.

This with the 18-135 - still think it's 'quite good' for macro but not 'really good' which is what I am after... not sure about the new 80mm either - it's undoubtedly a great lens but a big heavy beast and expensive too...

Might try a 60mm macro... only 1:2 magnification but would be fine with a Raynox - also a lot smaller and lighter (and about a third of the price!) - not sure yet (as will be clear...)


Peek-a-boo! by Mike Smith, on Flickr
 
Right just in case anybody is interested... I bought a 1.4tc and did a few tests:

1. 80mm on its own: Working Distance at 1:1 = 10cm
2. 80mm + 1.4tc: Working Distance at 1:1 = 12.5 cm
3. 80mm + 1.4tc: Working Distance at 1.33:1 = 10cm (maximum magnification)
4. 80mm + 1.4tc + Raynox150 at 2:1 = 6cm

So the 1.4tc definitely helps with greater working distance as I had hoped and also greater magnification as expected (Whereas the Raynox lets you gets closer but kills the working distance) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top