Miranda 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 MC MACRO - any experience?
Bend The Light
Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
Seen this, going cheap...it's a bayonet mount, but not sure WHICH bayonet...I would be interested if it's macro capabilities were good, otherwise I already have this range in auto lenses...I could get an adaptor, and wouldn't need infinity focus for macro.
Any thoughts, anyone? Need an idea in the next 8hrs. Cheers.
Craig
Any thoughts, anyone? Need an idea in the next 8hrs. Cheers.
Craig
0
Comments
A true "macro" lens will have at least a 1/2 life size capability and most have 1:1 or life size capability.
The above Miranda is just a cheap lens and the close focus images will not be good quality.
A very good and inexpensive true macro lens would be a Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8. Since you have a Canon camera you can get it in a Pentax screw mount (M42, screw universal) and use a simple adapter with a focus confirmation chip to allow automated exposure. (You would manually focus until you get the focus confirmation and then set the desired aperture. The camera will automate exposure. Pretty good for tripod work.)
A better choice is the same lens with the Canon EF mount and AF. You can find them a little over $200USD and it makes a very nice macro and portrait lens. (Mostly for head shots on a crop camera.) I have one and it is very sharp and very usable. AF is a little slow but a good match for my applications. Wide open the corners are a little soft but stop it down a bit, like in a typical macro situation, and it is as sharp as any other true macro. (Meaning excellent quality at middle and smaller apertures.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Small Hijack.
I've seen this on a number of different boards, and I'm thinking it really doesn't apply anymore.
Who can truly say what is life size in the digital world?
I have a Canon 50mm f2.5 macro lens. It has the ability to take shots at 1/2 life size.
So if I put that lens on a 8 mp camera, number one, it has a 1.6 crop factor, does that change the ratio?
How about comparing that lens on a 6 mp 1.6 crop to a 18 mp 1.6 7D?
surly there will be far more pixels involved in the later shot.
Using a 8mp Canon XT, a macro from the Canon 50mm f2.5 the shot would 3456 pixels wide.
The lens is 1/2 "life size"
Figuring the crop factor at 1.6, the shot now becomes .8 life size.
Take that same lens, put it on a 7D where the shot is 5184 pixels wide, or 1.5 times as many pixels wide.
It has the same crop factor, so the lens renders the shot at a ratio of .8
.8 times 1.5 gives me a life size factor of 1.2 when comparing the same shot from an 8mp camera
to a 18 mp camera with the same lens that is only a .5 macro.
Even a lens with a 1/3 ratio on a crop camera becomes a .53 macro, and thus becomes a true macro.
In this digital world that we live in, the macro ratios are very confusing.
There really is no standard to compare things to.
Hijack over.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
So, Dave, you think that a lens such as thed one I have seen is useful, or is it no better than the many manual lenses I have with macro tubes?
Ziggy, is the tamron in m42 substantially cheaper, and again, is there any use in getting another manual solution to the one I have?
Or do I wait for the money fairy to deliver enough for the Tamron Canon ef? (which is what i want, really!)
Just because you can apply digital magnification does not mean that you can achieve the same results as a direct optical acquisition. You could say the sane thing about long focal length lenses versus digital magnification of shorter focal lengths. Saying that a digital interpolation method can produce the same results as a native image capture is completely inaccurate and totally untrue.
In the case of photography the very definition of the word "macro" means something. Specifically it is accepted to mean a life size image projection upon the image plane. The lens definition of macro has been altered somewhat to include lenses "capable" of life size images with an adapter element.
The marketing departments of many manufacturers are also using the term "macro" to include close focus capabilities and resulting images which, when printed to at least 4" x 6" "snapshot" sized prints, will produce a resulting printed image of life size.
I simply refuse to accept the "marketing" definition because it is tremendously misleading, since they (the manufacturers) refuse to include the definition requiring a printing step to achieve the goal of life size image. I will always refer to those zoom lenses which include "Macro" in their name as truly just being "close focus" instead, and there are many close focus capable lenses which do not have the word "macro" in their name.
Understand that when I describe or recommend a lens I will often use the full name to help define which lens I reference, and that full name may include the word "Macro" by the manufacturer. I will not recommend a zoom lens with the word "Macro" when I know that the recipient of the information really needs a true "macro" capability.
Yes, it is unnecessarily confusing and yes, you can blame the Marketing Departments of the lens manufacturers for creating the confusion.
Now you are confusing capture magnification with end use magnification. A life size, 1:1, 1x image from a "true" macro lens will always be the same size on the same sized imager or the same size at the focal plane.
A US quarter, when photographed with a true macro lens and at 1:1 magnification, will always fill the short dimension of a full-frame (FF) 135 format camera. whether that camera is digital or film based. If you were to contact print a film frame of a US quarter at 1:1 magnification, the contact print of the US quarter would indeed still be around 24mm in size. Likewise a digital print of 1:1 magnification would also be a 24mm diameter likeness. Likewise a 1:1 representation of the US quarter on a computer monitor would also be a 24mm diameter.
Note that this is different from a 100 percent display where the pixel density is not taken into account, but the pixel density must be accounted for to achieve a life size, 1:1 representation.
For a crop 1.5x/1.6x format digital camera a US dime will fill the short dimension of the image frame at a 1:1 magnification, because the crop format is smaller than FF.
Armed with the above information you can use resulting image sizes to approximate magnification factors for different output media, whether print or computer display. Output magnifications will, of course, increase as the size of the output media increases.
The point is that I will choose a lens for a given application or project based on the properties required for the project. If I do indeed need a 1:1 magnification I will definitely choose a true macro lens for that purpose. Choosing a lens with less magnification will require greater digital interpolation and subsequent reduction in image quality.
If you were a paying client, would you rather I use the correct tool for the job or would you rather I simply adapt a lesser tool and supply lesser results? While there are times for less quality to be acceptable, there are many times where only the highest quality will do. Each project has its own requirements and expectations and any photographer had better understand the expectations beforehand or they will potentially waste a lot of time and energy. (Been there, done that many times.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You would be much happier with an AF capability, I am sure.
To just get better close focus or even macro magnifications there are lots of alternatives, each with benefits and detractions.
One of the cheapest methods is using a lens reversing ring to allow much closer focus than normally possible. This method works best with prime lenses that have a manual aperture ring. For a Canon body you might also want to use a focus confirmation capable adapter.
For more information:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=site%3Adgrin.com+reversed+lens&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6052204b889acdd8
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I do play around with these, and some yield good results, but often I am struggling...trying to shoot a hoverfly today with a 55mm reversed caused me bother, and I don't think I get as good an image, or magnification as if I used a 1:1 macro lens. So, I am frustrated...
I continue to peddle my wares on my website (slow slow) and some images on stock sites (slow slow) and one day I may afford the Tamron. But I also need a decent (E-TTL) flash...but that's another story!