The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony 100mm f/2.8 macro

edwardkaraa

New member
Imho, the best thing to get closer focus is with extension rings. No extra glass involved. But Sony doesn't seem to offer any.

Edit:

Found them: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/406965-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGM_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html

Wish I thought about that before getting the Sony macro. I expect the Zeiss 135 to be simply amazing with these. I've already shot some jewelry with it at MFD and the results were really really good.

I think we just have to be patient. Hell, they just now delivered a camera that perked up people's ears ... and a bunch of us rushed to get it. But the aging re-badged Minolta stuff is just a stop gap ... some are okay, others are not. The 50/1.4 is pretty good from the limited use I had with it.

In the meantime, I'm going to try a Heliopan Schott Glass, coated two sides +3 Close up lens on the Zeiss 135 and 24-70 and see what that looks like.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=21705&is=REG

Or maybe one of the these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10117-REG/B_W_65076279_77mm_Close_up_NL_3.html

Actually, the Canon 500D Close-Up lens is pretty damned good ... has 2 achromatic elements

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A002_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html#features

Or maybe the famous Leica Elpro 2 which at 55mm with fit the Sony 50/1.4

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/30082-USA/Leica_16542_Elpro_2.html

Or just use the 100/2.8VR Macro on the Nikon ... and leave it at that. If I need big, I'll use the H3D/31 and 120 macro.:)
 
Last edited:

edwardkaraa

New member
I took today some jewelry shots with the 100 macro at f/16 which is the minimum I would use to get decent DOF. I have to say the results are disappointing. I don't want to even think what would I have gotten at f/22 or f/32. The resized photos took a ridiculous amount of sharpening to look good, and it shows. The 100% crops are standard sharpening in IDC3. I still didn't get the extension tubes, but I don't expect much from the ZA 135 as it is obviously not a macro lens and is not optimized for such use. We really need a Zeiss macro. My Contax 100/2.8 makro-planar was light years sharper even at f/22.

View attachment 13481

View attachment 13482

View attachment 13483

View attachment 13484
 
Last edited:

douglasf13

New member
I think the issue is in large part due to diffraction. It's hardly ever worth shooting over f11 with a 24MP fullframe, because diffraction starts to set in at f8, and over f11 or so it gets really bad.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I took today some jewelry shots with the 100 macro at f/16 which is the minimum I would use to get decent DOF. I have to say the results are disappointing. I don't want to even think what would I have gotten at f/22 or f/32. The resized photos took a ridiculous amount of sharpening to look good, and it shows. The 100% crops are standard sharpening in IDC3. I still didn't get the extension tubes, but I don't expect much from the ZA 135 as it is obviously not a macro lens and is not optimized for such use. We really need a Zeiss macro. My Contax 100/2.8 makro-planar was light years sharper even at f/22.

View attachment 13481

View attachment 13482

View attachment 13483

View attachment 13484

Was the Zeiss 100/2.8 Macro "Light Years Sharper" shooting the same subject?

What you have here IMO is the same thing I ran into when I tried to shoot a Jewelry assignment with that kind of high key light using a Canon 1DsMKII and both a Canon macro :thumbdown: :thumbdown: ... and then a Zeiss 100/2.8 Makro-Planar using an adapter ... a little better, but no cigar :thumbdown: The best was an adapted Leica 100/2.8 APO ... but even that wasn't good enough. :thumbdown: The APO helped with all that scattered light, but that wasn't the solution because the sensor also contributed to the problem ... I just switched to my Contax 645 with a Kodak ProBack and the 120/4 macro ... and all was well. I had hoped they weren't lying when they said the "s" in 1DsMKII meant "Studio" BULL!

So, that 35mm DSLR sensor isn't helping ... coupled with diffracted light from stopping down the lens past f/8

What we REALLY need for this kind of work is a highly corrected 90mm T/S lens like the new and improved 85/2.8 T/S Nikkor. That'd help with not stopping down so much.

Diamonds are a bear to photograph ... it's one of the few things on earth that actually increases the light being reflected back to the eye ... which is why they sparkle like nothing else.

These days I use a Rollei Xact2 view camera and Rodenstock 120 Macro Digital APO with a 39 meg back. BIG HONKIN' Horses for Courses.:ROTFL:
 
Last edited:

edwardkaraa

New member
The MP was indeed sharper and it was strictly used under the same lighting and for the same subject.

This was shot on a 1DsII with the 100 Makro-Planar at f/16 or f/22.

Very minimal sharpening applied to the resized file.

I don't have the full file on this computer but will post 100% crop later on.

View attachment 13486
 
Last edited:

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I think the issue is in large part due to diffraction. It's hardly ever worth shooting over f11 with a 24MP fullframe, because diffraction starts to set in at f8, and over f11 or so it gets really bad.
I cannot agree with this. My 120mm Mamiya macro on a 22mp Mamiya ZD is good at around F.20 so there is no excuse for softness with the Sony macro at similar f-stops. The fact is the Sony macro is a hobbyist consumer grade lens, not up to professional use and it shows.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I cannot agree with this. My 120mm Mamiya macro on a 22mp Mamiya ZD is good at around F.20 so there is no excuse for softness with the Sony macro at similar f-stops. The fact is the Sony macro is a hobbyist consumer grade lens, not up to professional use and it shows.
Fully agreed!

I have noticed that different lenses do not react similarly to the laws of diffraction, some suffer from it tremendously while others are barely affected.

Especially macro lenses are designed to be used with very small apertures. My makro-planar for instance could be used to its smallest aperture f/22 with barely any signs of diffraction. The same lens seems to feature one of the old time Zeiss tricks, the extended DOF. It seems to have a much longer DOF than other lenses as it defocuses very softly and objects outside the circle of confusion still look reasonably sharp.

The Sony macro in the countrary seems to suffer from extreme diffraction starting from f/16 and looses focus very abruptly as you can see in the cross pictures.
 

Braeside

New member
I'd like to see a series of direct comparison shots between one of these other macro lenses and the Sony 100mm at the same range of apertures with the same camera.

I can't explain how a good lens of the same focal length can defy the laws of optical diffraction, unless the poorer lens's aberrations are somehow magnified by the effects of diffraction.

From my own tests with the similar Minolta 100mm/2.8 macro, I can clearly see that diffraction is limiting resolution, but that is pixel peeping at 100%, whether it matters at normal print sizes is another matter. I naively assumed that all macro lenses would suffer the same diffraction effects.

Certainly something with very bright highlights like a diamond is going to show every slight lens aberration, especially colour fringing and longitudinal CA.
 

Braeside

New member
I cannot agree with this. My 120mm Mamiya macro on a 22mp Mamiya ZD is good at around F.20 so there is no excuse for softness with the Sony macro at similar f-stops. The fact is the Sony macro is a hobbyist consumer grade lens, not up to professional use and it shows.
Are we comparing eggs with eggs here? The pixel density on the MF larger sensor is not the same as the A900 ?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'd like to see a series of direct comparison shots between one of these other macro lenses and the Sony 100mm at the same range of apertures with the same camera.

I can't explain how a good lens of the same focal length can defy the laws of optical diffraction, unless the poorer lens's aberrations are somehow magnified by the effects of diffraction.

From my own tests with the similar Minolta 100mm/2.8 macro, I can clearly see that diffraction is limiting resolution, but that is pixel peeping at 100%, whether it matters at normal print sizes is another matter. I naively assumed that all macro lenses would suffer the same diffraction effects.

Certainly something with very bright highlights like a diamond is going to show every slight lens aberration, especially colour fringing and longitudinal CA.
I tend to agree with you just based on experience... therefore do not have scientific charts and what not to bring to bear on the subject. I know what I see.

There are too many variables to consider ... how something is lit can have a huge effect; is the sensor contributing to issues (sensor bloom around specular highlights), DOF control; Flatness of field; how much the lens design favors close-up focusing; APO corrections or not; as well as diffraction issues.

I tend to believe that the older Minolta consumer grade macro rebadged as a Sony isn't going to deliver in an acid test like shooting diamonds. I know the Canon 100/2.8 can't. The Zeiss N100/2.8 macro couldn't pull it off. And I know for a fact that the current Zeiss Z series 100/2 Macro can't either ... where the Z 50/2 may do better (but I'd have to try it). So the Zeiss name isn't a guarantee. I haven't tried the Nikon 100/2.8 VR but wouldn't hold my breath on that lens either. Probably the best you could do with a 35mm DSLR would be a Leica 100/2.8 APO. or use a 35mm bellows with an APO view lens

I do know the Zeiss/Contax 120/4 can, but 645 is lending a huge hand there ... especially when employing a CCD type MF sensor without all the AA filtering that's done on CMOS sensors. Also, the Mamiya RZ 140 macro does very well and has a tilt/shift adapter to aid with DOF.

The long and short of it is that 35mm macro isn't the best tool for this kind of work.

BTW, this is how I prefer to display jewelry (Bling photographed for a merchant catering to Middle Eastern clients) ... :ROTFL: :ROTFL:
 

Braeside

New member
Thanks for the comments on 35mm macro v MF. I have been doing a bit of reading on Macro this morning as it is a subject that I have had very limited experience with. One thing I had not appreciated was that as we focus closer and the reproduction ratio gets closer to 1:1, the effective aperture becomes smaller (larger f/no). At 1:1 RR f/16 marked on the lens is effectively f/32, so no wonder that we see considerable softening at f/22.
Confusingly some modern DSLRs like the Nikon actually show effective apertures in the viewfinder, but most do not, including the Sony.

I think we all agree that it is a case of the right tool for the job and 35mm is not that tool for such detailed macro work.
No doubt having larger format sensors is going to be better for macro work as diffraction sets in at smaller apertures there.
 

douglasf13

New member
I cannot agree with this. My 120mm Mamiya macro on a 22mp Mamiya ZD is good at around F.20 so there is no excuse for softness with the Sony macro at similar f-stops. The fact is the Sony macro is a hobbyist consumer grade lens, not up to professional use and it shows.
I can't speak for the Sony macro, but there is little comparison to be drawn between the ZD and A900 in regards to diffraction. We're talking about pixel pitches of 9 microns vs. 5.9 microns, which is a pretty significant difference. I wouldn't be surprised if one could get an extra stop or two out of the ZD in any situation, regardless of the lens used.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I agree with Marc that 35mm is not very suitable for jewelry, BUT, I have been shooting jewelry with FF digital for several years, and have been satisfied so far with the results. Obviously the people for whom I shoot were satisfied too. Now, I see a major step backwards. The results are not what I'm used to get only a few weeks ago with a 16.7mp 1Ds2 and Makro-Planar. Is it due to the few extra pixels, or to the poor Sony lens? Or maybe a combination of both? Unfortunately there is no way to tell at the moment.
 

Braeside

New member
Interesting Edward, is it just with 100% screen pixel peeping that the A900 macro shots are lacking, or can you see the difference clearly at normal print sizes?
What aperture did you typically use previously for such work with 35mm?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree with Marc that 35mm is not very suitable for jewelry, BUT, I have been shooting jewelry with FF digital for several years, and have been satisfied so far with the results. Obviously the people for whom I shoot were satisfied too. Now, I see a major step backwards. The results are not what I'm used to get only a few weeks ago with a 16.7mp 1Ds2 and Makro-Planar. Is it due to the few extra pixels, or to the poor Sony lens? Or maybe a combination of both? Unfortunately there is no way to tell at the moment.
If it's not to late, send the lens back.

Did you try using the micro focus adjust? It's a long shot, but maybe the lens is off a bit (?)

Or maybe it's just a bad copy. Wouldn't be the first time, or the last. I've sent a number of lenses back and the next ones were better. Even a couple of L optics ... and a load of Leica M lenses went back to Germany for calibration that were ALL off ... one by a mile that couldn't achieve critial focus even at f/8.

Or maybe it just sucks :(
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Interesting Edward, is it just with 100% screen pixel peeping that the A900 macro shots are lacking, or can you see the difference clearly at normal print sizes?
What aperture did you typically use previously for such work with 35mm?
Actually I have a standard lighting that I didn't change for several years (I'm too lazy :D). It requires f/16 to f/22 depending on the magnification (I usually work at 1x to .5x magnification). I tried downsizing the files to 8mp but the softness was still there.
 

Braeside

New member
I had to send back my first CZ 24-70 as it was clearly poorly collimated.
The replacement one was prefect by comparison, so poor copies do exist.

I had to microadjust the AF for every lens to suit my A900, I seem to have an AF offset of typically about -5 with my A900, but at least I can adjust it easily, which is the best feature for me that the A900 has over my previous DSLRs.

Edward, OK on the standard lighting, I just wondered if you had any way of trying a slightly bigger aperture, but I appreciate the lighting may not be suitable, nor the DOF.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
If it's not to late, send the lens back.

Did you try using the micro focus adjust? It's a long shot, but maybe the lens is off a bit (?)

Or maybe it's just a bad copy. Wouldn't be the first time, or the last. I've sent a number of lenses back and the next ones were better. Even a couple of L optics ... and a load of Leica M lenses went back to Germany for calibration that were ALL off ... one by a mile that couldn't achieve critial focus even at f/8.

Or maybe it just sucks :(
I usually manually focus the lens to its MFD and adjust the focus by moving the subject back or forth (it's on a moving piece of plexi). The DOF is so thin that I can get very accurate focus exactly where I want it.

The lens is very sharp at wider apertures, so I don't think it's a bad copy. Interestingly, I have seen conflicting results at small apertures with different reviews. SLRgear copy shows excellent results even until f/22, but f/32 is not usable. J-M Sepulchre in his book on the A900 (several tests can be read at lemondedelaphoto.com) claims f/16 as the last usable aperture. Photozone test on an APS-C body shows average performance at f/16 and a dramatic drop in resolution at f/22. So I believe there may be sample variations which affect diffraction at small apertures for some strange reason.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Edward, OK on the standard lighting, I just wondered if you had any way of trying a slightly bigger aperture, but I appreciate the lighting may not be suitable, nor the DOF.
I did play around with it handheld at wide apertures, and it looks to be very sharp. It's definitely afflicted by a worse than usual diffraction effect.
 
Top