![]() Why? Because they give excellent quality results, and if you decide to purchase a dedicated macro lens down the road, you can use them in combination with your dedicated macro for even more magnification.Ĭheap extension tubes – I tested two extension tubes in the test, and it turns out that the cheaper set performed better. When it comes right down to it, I would definitely purchase a set of extension tubes as your first macro lens. Let's do this! Ready for Pinterest! Spoiler Alert! Let's start with the best lens… I purchased 8 different options for macro photography, so in this test we'll be reviewing extension tubes vs. That makes it pretty impossible for photographers to know which option is the best bang for the buck. Note that it is compressed to fit under the 1000kb attachment limit.I have read countless reviews online of macro lenses, but the problem with all of them is that they only have one lens on hand. It's a challenging scene for any lens and I think it does very well. It is backlit and has plenty of fine detail as well as some bokeh. Lastly, take a look at the attached image. Not quite as good resolution as modern macro lenses.If you like old-school lenses or also want a good macro lens for your 35mm SLR, I highly recommend this lens. It holds up well compared to the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM with the exception of wide-open chromatic aberration. As far as legacy glass goes, this is by far the best I've used (among several). With foresight and practice, this lens can work well for sports events, despite manual focus only. Note the chromatic aberration around stars: This lens is not great for astrophotography. Pay attention to the quality of background blur and subject sharpness: This sample shows how details like spider's silk and the fibers on plant leaves are resolved: Pay attention to high contrast areas and the out-of-focus highlights here: *These photos were shot in RAW with Neutral picture style, processed in Lightroom for color and exposure correction only. Contrast and sharpness are set to default. Sharpness at f/2.5-4 is good f/5.6-f/11 is very sharp. Chromatic aberration is present at f/2.5 but is almost completely gone at f/4. ![]() The color, resolution, contrast, and out-of-focus aesthetic is very good. Focusing manually with the AT-X 90 isn't frustrating or tedious - it's lovely. They have a short throw and are very imprecise and just generally feel terrible. ![]() The AF is quite good but for macro it's almost useless and the weakest feature of these modern AF macro lenses is their manual focus ring. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM was what I used before I switched to Sony. The manual focus ring is the best mechanical feature of this lens. Still, the resolution of the a6000 is good enough that cropping to 3000x2000 px (50%) is not an issue - and gets essentially 1:1 magnification. The macro capability is limited to 1:2 which is great for most wildlife, however it will be limiting if you intend to shoot very small insects or other tiny things. It's a vintage lens with the right amount of contemporary aesthetic. Much cooler than some other legacy lenses. Focus is smooth, the aperture ring is clicky and has a good amount of resistance, and the bayonet mount is secure. ![]() It's light, despite the metal construction but very dense. ![]() It's made entirely of metal and the coating is durable. It does extend when focused at its minimum distance, however it is quite small focused at infinity which makes carrying and storing the lens convenient. One of the things I like most about this lens is it's construction. I used this lens with the Fotodiox Canon FD- Sony E adapter. I recently sold it to replace it with modern optics but I did enjoy this lens very much while I owned it. At the time, there were no short-tele Macro options for the Sony E-mount system. I purchased the AT-X 90/2.5 Macro after a lot of research. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |