Zeiss 100mm Macro 1:2 ratio - an issue?

[peter b in london]

<p>Hi, I've searched around here and seen quite a few posts about this lens.<br>

I'm nearly ready to pull the trigger on it over the latest version of the Nikon 105mm. Primarily I want to use the Zeiss as a macro. I have been using an old Nikon 105mm f2.5 AIS lens that I've had for about 20 years + a set of extension rings thus far to do my macro work.<br>

I've got no problem with manual focus and the other tradeoffs but I am concerned that the Zeiss goes to a max 1:2 ratio while the Nikon is spec'd at 1:1. Is it a waste to use the extension rings on a fine lens like the Zeiss to get it to 1:1? Is it a huge issue/difference between 1:1 and 1:2 for those macro lovers out there?<br>

Thanks for your insights!</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Magnification of 1:1 is more of an emotional need than a practical necessity. Most macro photos are probably taken at 1:4 or less. Lenses which produce a 1:1 ratio often do so by shortening the focal length internally. This includes the Nikkor 60, 105 and 200 mm AF Micro lenses. To do so in a lens like the Zeiss (or 55/2.8 AIS) would require a focusing helix range of 2 inches, which would require several turns or lose the focusing precision. It's better to use an extension tube for those instances than to provide an internal solution.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>2 cents worth. Yes, the range between 1:2 (72mm width) to 1:1 (36mm width) is 2X (you can call that huge). But then life doesn't stop at 36mm. There is also the 2:1 (18mm width), 3:1 (12mm) and higher magnifications. Unless you are using your picture to measure the sizes of the pictured subject, don't lose sleep on it. Loss sleep on how accurate that 1:1 really is :-)</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>If your interest is insects, or other small subjects, then yes 1:2 to 1:1 is needed. My Nikon 60mm (AFD), 85mm, 105mm (AFD) and 200mm (AFD) micro lenses perform well on tubes. In fact the 85mm is exceptional. I would be surprised if the Zeiss was any different, but with luck someone with experience will chip in.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>As far as I'm concerned, the discussion of the importance of 1:1 over 1:2 is pure marketing. If the lens already goes to 1:2, then it's easy to add a ring to switch the focusing range down a notch. Also, depending on situation, you might want to use stacked lenses, a bellows or some other accessory when you get close. As mentioned, making a focusing helicoid going to 1:1 on 100 mm lens is a bit unpractical; one ends up adding a lot of bulk and weight for relatively small convenience. One thing to remember for small subjects is to use DX, where 1:2 is a smaller subject size than with FX.<br>

The Zeiss 100/2 is clearly one of the best macro lenses out there at that focal length. It is better than the equivalent Nikkor. I also prefer the handling to the Zeiss. From testing these lenses my experience is that for macro work, the Zeiss is preferable, while the 105/4 AF-S VR is more suitable as an all-round lens that can do good casual macros.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 100mm ZF is an awesome lens that performs very well on extension tubes. <em>Not</em> using extension tubes when needed on this lens would be a waste of its fine performance between 1:1 and 1:2. Remember to try the wide apertures also - you'd be surprised how good the image quality can be.</p>

 

[peter b in london]

<p>Thanks so much everyone for your input. It has helped me get over the last hurdle. I'm excited to get my hands on the Zeiss and see what I can do with it.<br>

cheers!</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>"As far as I'm concerned, the discussion of the importance of 1:1 over 1:2 is pure marketing. If the lens already goes to 1:2, then it's easy to add a ring to switch the focusing range down a notch."</p>

<p>That may well be true for static subjects. It is not marketing, but convenience and speed of operation, and can be important for active subjects such as insects.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I use the PK-13 a lot. It doesn't get you to 1:1 but somewhere around 1:1.3 but when you use it instead of the PN-11 (which lets you go to 1:1) you can still focus at longer distances. Most of the time I have the PK-13 on the 100mm ZF. My subjects are ice and flowers - these are relatively stable (though there is usually water movement and wind, so timing is critical). For insect photos with the 100mm, you may want to set the magnification first and move the camera to keep the subject in focus. I think close-ups with the 105 VR are always ever so slightly fuzzy so even if it is easier to reach that level of quality because of the VR and AF-S features, it's not what I want. I want to amaze the viewer and that is easier to achieve with the 100mm. Not to mention it's also easier to focus manually and generally more pleasant to use. The viewfinder image at f/2 is so sharp it makes focusing in low light easy, even when you use a bellows.</p>

<p>For 1:1 and beyond, if you work in such conditions that you can use bellows and specialized macro lenses, those should be considered for best results, along with focus stacking to increase the depth of field. I'm hoping to get into this area within the next year or so, if time permits.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Leif, how many times do you need to go from infinity to 1:1 in a matter of seconds? Adding a PK-13 on the Zeiss 100/2 will put the focusing range to roughly 1:3.7 to 1:1.3, which is a quite useful range for small things. I am by no means an expert insect photographer, but just last week I took some tack sharp photos of larger insects using my 105/4 AI-S and I didn't feel that the lens was holding me back (except for maybe the aperture range...the Zeiss is a really fast lens!). I quickly focused to get the desired magnification, then moved myself to get the subject in focus.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>Oskar: You said that in your opinion being able to go to 1:1 was pure marketing. I can tell you that when you are in the field, perhaps with a handheld camera and macro flash, chasing insects, or maybe with a tripod mounted camera, it is not pure marketing. The chances are that if you do not fit the tube, then the ideal shot is inside 1:2, and vica versa. Sometimes the trick is to creep up on an insect. Having to swap a tube makes that trickier. Obviously there are many situations where the inconvenience is minimal, the photographer must decide whether or not it is an issue. Your suggestion to use the PK-13 tube is a sensible one, and can make life a bit easier.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>As hinted, my background is more with macro shots of static subjects, with the occasional insect closeup with surroundings (usually between 1:2 to 1:4). The handling characteristics of focal length shortening lenses far outweigh the benefits of going directly to 1:1 for me and I feel that going to 1:2 is an excellent compromise. But there are of course different subjects and different techniques to approach them.<br>

But I think that anyone taking macro seriously will end up buying many lenses to suit different situations... I frequently have a hard time choosing what to carry. I don't have the Zeiss in question myself, but after having tried and tested it I'm convinced that it is a very solid choice.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>Oskar: I suspect you can't go wrong by choosing the Zeiss. Assuming you can afford it. I am sure Peter will be pleased.</p>