Sharpest macro

[jorgen_dalen]

<p>According to photozone, the sharpest macro lens (highest maximum resolution) is the zeiss 100mm 2.0, beating even the 135mm 2.0L and the 100mm 2.8 IS (at least in the lab)<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/508-zeiss100f2eosff">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/508-zeiss100f2eosff</a></p>

[markonestudios]

I'm a bit confused now, by the requirement for edge to edge sharpness when a lens is being used in a portraiture application. If I want sharp focus on the face, wrinkles and all but the rest of the image to be suitably OOF, why would I want edge to edge sharpness? Isn't it only the face that is intended to be in focus? Perhaps I'm missing something?

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I want to fill the frame with a face and capture every pore and wrinkle. Of course it is not flattering but I took portraits like this of my good friend and my Mam and Dad before they passed away. When I look back now it is if they are in the room with me, as they were and as they will be forever. Trust me, one day you'll look back at these pictures of loved ones passed and be glad you have done it. My little baby who was born just before they died but will in time be able to look back and see his grandparents as they were.<br>

<a href=" /><a href="

<p>Wonderful things are photographs, as are the people who take the time to advise a novice like me how to take them. Thanks for the amazing advice, I continue to be humbled by all your knowledge.</p>

 

[markonestudios]

Hi Kevin, it is as I suspected then :) If filling the frame with a face then your wanting good edge to edge sharpness now makes sense. thank you for clarifying. and yes indeed, photos are wonderful things :) One of my favourite images is one of my <a href='http://www.photo.net/photo/6501230'>grandpa</a> so I totally understand your desire to capture poignant images.

<p>On another note, judging from your portfolio, I'd hardly call you a novice :)

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Although I have no personal experience with it, many folks rave about Sigma 150/2.8 macro.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>If they don't mind your being close a Tamron Sp AF 60mm F/2 Dill Macro will give you 1 to 1 image size but you will be close to them. This lens has a $100 rebate till the end of the year that makes it a more economical purchase. On a crop frame camera it is a good portrait lens. The Canon Macro lens with IS is a great lens but more that twice the money for a lens that I would not use that often.<br>

Jim</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I also meant to confirm earlier that the 135/2 does focus to 3ft.<br>

Also, as mentioned previously, with Focus Limiting switch selected to the “1.6m - ∞” the closest AF focusing distance is a bit over 5ft, so it is quite possible this switch is limiting the AF.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>It's on the 3 feet setting so perhaps it's broken?</p>

[William Michael]

<p><br />Maybe a fault in yours. . . or my "scientific method" is flawed . . . <br /><br />My 135/2 on my 5D can do this, it is the JPEG straight out of the box . . . I think is says 3ft ? ? ?

<p>

<p>:)

<p>

<p>

<p>WW

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>As I said, any lens can be used for anything, but I still stand by my statement that different lenses are designed for different things.</p>

<p>It's not "narrow minded" to suggest that those original purposes be considered in choosing a lens, especially a very specialized and expensive lens. Of course, if a $1400 lens is a casual, pocket-change purchase for you, just buy them all and try them out. Of course, spending other people's money is easy.</p>

<p>The TS-E lenses are great lenses, but compromises are necessary in their design to give the large coverage at the sensor plane that lets the shifts and tilts work. Moreover, they are manual focus, not a serious handicap for studio portrait work, but there is no option to turn AF back on. I wouldn't care for that on a lens I was using for work on the street, for example. They are lenses that call out for use on a tripod. If you can live with that, it might be just the thing.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>... not spending other people's money at all... no body has mentioned buying all the TS-E lenses or any other lenses for that matter and testing them all... I do however note (as I have mentioend several times) mine was just simply answering the question as it was asked and laying out all the possibilities to suit...</p>

<p>Others began “overkill” and such comments related to these options given...</p>

<p>taking opinions and especially FACTUAL ANSWERS to THE QUESTIONS as ASKED out of context... is done a lot on this forum and usually by the same people…</p>

<p>So I'll stick with “narrow-minded” as the response to that... because it is … and it fits.</p>

<p>Yes TS-E are manual focus and etal - valid points, no argument: an inconveninece for portraiture generally . . . but (repeating myself) they are sharp and flat edge to edge and get up close, can be used with rings.</p>

<p>Maybe TS-E is what Kevin wants, maybe not - but it does answer the question he asked and studio Portrait Photographers do use them . . . not "overkill" at all... just another option... not speanding other's money... just adding to the list of lenses which suit the bill and answer the question as it was asked.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<p>If you want a lens that is approximately as sharp as the 135 and focuses closer, look at EF 100L and Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro. If you want to see "every wrinkle", look at lighting techniques rather than lens sharpness.</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I had a go of my brother-in-law's Canon 60mm ef-s and was impressed with the sharpness off that, it was awesome. So TS-E lenses could be used for landscapes as well as portraits then, the universal lens?</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>taking opinions and especially FACTUAL ANSWERS to THE QUESTIONS as ASKED out of context... is done a lot on this forum and usually by the same people</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll certainly second that.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>JDM . . . OK so that last comment means: either I am confused with my interpretation of what you wrote . . . OR you are in agreement with my interpretation. <br>

Either way, the issue is buried by me.<br>

If I misinterpreted your original intent or meaning: apologies from my end.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>So TS-E lenses could be used for landscapes as well as portraits then, the universal lens?</strong><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would go say far as to say “universal lens”.<br>

The TS-E 17 and 24 and 45 are pretty amazing for landscape work. The 90 is a little longish but I have seen some amazing landscape stuff – yes. It is easy to find sample images on the WWW using a competent search engine.<br>

There is a bloke here at Photo.net - and I have forgotten his name - he has a lot in his portfolio – I think it is the 45 he seems to use as his “Travel Lens” – the photos I saw were typical shots of Buckingham Palace and London Street Scenes – quite extraordinary with the TS-E 45.<br>

But as mentioned: there is knowledge to be learnt about the lens movements and what each achieves and time required on site to make those lens movements and they are Manual Focus Lenses – so using one it is the opposite extreme to having a 24-104LIS on the 5D, standing in one spot, zooming all day and shooting in Program Mode with AF selected. <br>

I have used field and view cameras so that’s one reason why I have a particular interest, also I already own, or have access to “the lenses I need” so acquiring a TS-E 90m or TS-E 45 is next on my agenda and I will use mine for portraits, mainly, I think.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I have the 17mm TS-E, far and away the best landscape and architectural lens I have ever seen. It has limited use as a product and environmental portrait lens as well though, one of the clever things for the ultrawide is that you can shift and so position a subject at the edge of the frame but have no wide angle distortion on them, because you are placing them at the center of the imaging circle even though it is the edge of the frame, never would have thought of that one myself.</p>

<p>The minute they come out with a MkII 90 TS-E that has the same functionality as the newest TS's I'll be getting one. But I'll be getting a 100 IS L macro before then.</p>

<p>I still believe, as in my first answer, that the good Dr's issues could almost certainly be attributed to lighting, not lens resolution. And again as my first reply, if it just a subject distance limitation then the 180 macro is a far better suited complement to the 135 as it will give a very similar fov as the focus, and focal length, get shorter.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong>has the same functionality as the newest TS's . . . </strong>that's a point the 17 and the 24MkII have different functionalities (more functionality) than the original 24, 45 and 90. . . . I have to fly -Scott or someone else might might expand on the differences . . .<br>

. . . also just concerning the good Dr's issues - remember that Kevin's 135 cannot focus to 3ft - so it could have sustained an injury - perhaps it is not as sharp as we think it is? <br>

WW</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I agree with your comment William, it sounds an excellent and complete lens.</p>