flat field macro

I am going to purchase a macro lense and would like to use it for

copy of artwork, nature close-ups, and portraiture. I know, I'm

asking a lot, but on a budget. A zoom would be nice but I

understand image quality may not be as good as a fixed lense. Also,

for copywork, it was suggested that I should pay more for a flat

field lense. Currently I am considering the Nikon, 60mm/f2.8 or the

Tamron, 90mm/f2.8 (used). I have been trying to determine if either

of these lenses are "flat field" but I have not been able to find

any reference to that in the on-line literature. Anyone know about

this? Thanks!

Flat-field means the focus will be on a plane surface, even very near. The few lenses that are like that are generaly specialised bellows lenses and of course enlarger lenses. The budget ones are M42 (bellows) and T-mounts (lenses). You would have to hunt for a Nikon to M42 adapter, an M42 bellows and the hard part: M42 to T-mount adapter + T-mount flat field macro lens. I have such a kit, cost me just under $100 but took years to assemble (but i was not specificly hunting for it). It is indeed perfect for reproduction.

 

The good news is: most macro lenses have 'flatter' field than others and when stop down, are not too bad if the work is not critical. Longer focal should be better at this and keep a better distance from subject in nature plus a better control at background.

 

For portrait, short tele is best (80 to 135). Macro are nice but slower (focus ring turns a lot)

 

The Tamron is a much better choice here because it is 90mm. Unless the artwork in question is really small, there should not be any problems. It goes to 1:1 but near that limit, you just won't have enough depth of field for flat-field work.

 

Art reproduction is the most challenging of your 3 applications. It also need distorsion free, therefore no zoom, and high sharpness. Besides the specialised kit mentionned, i can't think of a better choice than the Tamron 90 F2.8 (not F2.5). You should also know that there is a (same brand) flat field SP 2x converter. It is a nice 6 elements doubler that does not add field curvature and works well with that specific lens.

Nearly all photographic objectives are flat field. Don't worry about it. And ignore the bs artists who carry on about the folly of shooting subjects that have appreciable depth with "flat field" lenses.

 

Either of the lenses you're considering will serve you well. The only question is the range of magnifications at which you'll be shooting artwork. If it is close to 1:1, the 90 will give you better working distance, which will lighting the subject somewhat easier.

 

And there's no reason to buy a new MicroNikkor, either, or to get an AF lens for macro or copy work. Closeup, AF just gets in the way.

 

And used lenses in good order are as good as new, and less expensive. Real people don't buy new lenses every few shots. We all shoot used lenses. If you're concerned about being stuck with a used lens in poor order, avoid eBay, buy from, say, KEH.

 

Good luck,

 

Dan

I have both these lenses and both of them are marvellous for flat artwork. All macro lenses you get today are flat-field. However, my Tamron 90 beats the 60/2.8 micro at infinity/beyond 30 feet or so.

 

How big are the artworks? Have you considered trying reversed lenses? If you already have a 28-105 zoom nikkor or similar, it will give you a range of magnifications in reversed mode and the result will be comparable to the macros.

"Real people don't buy new lenses every few shots. We all shoot used lenses." -- Dan Fromm

 

I like that one, Dan :-) I agree!

If you do not need matrix metering capabilities (don't know which camera you are using), try and find a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 lens.

 

One of the best.

 

Among "flat field"zooms, you can consider a Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm f/4.5 flat field zoom (excellent lens, not as spectacular as the 90mm prime. At 180mm, it does not give a "flat field" performance) or a 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 AF macro zoom from Nikon.

Another person who is VERY impressed with the inexpensive Tamrons 90mm f2.8 and f2.5 lenses). You can pick these up + the T-mount adaptoe for less than $150, well worth the investment.

Any macro lens is fine, or a normal lens with a high quality (two-element) close-up lens attached. My 35-year-old Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 lens does a superb job with the types of subjects that you mentioned.

 

The key decision factor is the camera-to-subject distance. I use a longer Nikkor for close-up portraiture, which definitely does not require a sharp/contrasty lens, but on my copystand a normal-length lens is much better. I like to shoot mushrooms, and the 55mm is fine for this. For scorpions, I might prefer the 90mm!

 

True macro's are "flat field," but this is just a tradeoff in the optical design. It isn't necessarily a better lens overall, and you don't need it to copy flat objects. Stop down....

 

"Brandon's Dad"

I use a Nikon 55mm f 2.8 manual focus macro lens for this kind of work. It meters with Nikon n90s, f100, f5 and some other Nikon bodies. You did not mention your camera body. That might be important for us to know. Joe Smith

Macro lenses not only focus closer, but are designed to have a flatter field and less distortion at close distances than standard lenses. Many Nikon macro lenses have elements that move separately during focusing to optimize flatness of field at all distances. Macro lenses are usually much more symmetrical than lenses designed for work with standard subjects. They should not be confused with "macro" focusing on standard lenses, which is merely close focusing without the design considerations.

 

The correct focal length depends on the application. For closeups in nature, you generally want the longest possible working distance, which you find with longer focal lengths. (The working distance is the distance from the front element to the subject). Longer working distance makes it easier to approach a subject, especially ones that move, and makes it easier to illuminate the subject by flash or daylight. Longer focal lengths help isolate the subject with a smaller depth of field, and a smaller angle of view helps control the background content.

 

A 50-60 mm focal length is a better choice for copying documents. It's often too hard to get far enough away with a longer lens, especially on a tripod or copy stand. For large items, like paintings, you may find it better to use a wide-angle (non-macro) lens, since the reproduction ratio is well below 1:10.

 

In any case, auto-focus is not needed and often detrimental to macro photography. AF is useful if you use the lens for general photography. You can always turn AF off, and the Nikon lenses are generally easy to focus manually (the 105/2.8 tends to slip when held vertically). If you get a short macro, I highly recommend the Nikon 55/2.8 manual focus lens.

 

As an aside, MTF charts are usually taken at longer distances, so macro lenses suffer in comparison with standard lenses, largely due to curvature of field.

I'll second the suggestion for the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 macro. It was one of the sharpest 90's ever made and the build qualty right up there with the best of Minolta, Nikon, Canon or Olympus for their own top of the line optics.