How good is a zoom for close up work?

[leif_goodwin8]

<P>

Recently there was some discussion about the Nikon 70-210mm F4 lens

which is cheap and said to produce pro-quality results. As it

focusses to 1:4 I decided to see how it compares with a Nikon 200mm

micro lens. In short, can a cheap zoom produce useable close up

pictures. The conclusion I drew is yes, it can produce images

suitable for excellent 12x8 enlargements. In short the lens is an

absolute bargain. Click <A

HREF="http://mysite.freeserve.com/ukfungi2/LensTest200mmVersus70to210m

m.html">here</A> for the test.

</P>

 

<P>

<A HREF="http://mysite.freeserve.com/ukfungi">Leif</A>

</P>

[leif_goodwin8]

Incidentally as I didn't ask a question, the question is does anyone disagree with my results, or have interesting comments to make? Thanks. Leif.

[dan_fromm2]

Well, you've proved again that scanners and color film are inventions of the devil. Could you try again with, say, TMX?

 

Question of procedure. Were the "crops" done post-scanning?

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[michael_moon]

Well, since you asked, yes I do disagree. The zoom is softer, noticeeably and objectionably so in your last pair of images. OTOH, for a quarter of the price, it really does well - as far as your tests go - and would be acceptable for any purpose but serious enlargements.

 

Without any sort of rigorous testing, just the benefit of a zillion shots, my experience tells me that as long as a shot will not require enlargement beyond 8x10, my 70-210, 28-105 or 24-50 do all I ask. If I need macro work or bigger enlargements, primes are the choice.

 

And if it matters, I'm talking Maxxum/Dynax, not Nikon. The Maxxum 70-210/4, 24-50/4 and 28-105 seem to enjoy pretty solid reputations.

[rj__]

Leif,

 

You have a really nice web site.

[jay_horton1]

IMO for shooting pictures of Canadian money, you could buy a cheap 50mm macro lens and get much higher quality results.

 

And I also believe that if you tested some objects with depth, you would find the real short comings of the zoom.

 

I recently did this with my cheap, plastic EF 50 macro, and my 70-200 f2.8L on extension tubes. The cheap macro is better.

[leif_goodwin8]

Dan. Wot? Yes the crops were from full frame scanes.

 

Rory: Thanks.

 

Micheal: I don't think the zoom *equals* the prime for sharpness, but it is close for a 12x8 enlargement. I am not sure that most Nikon zooms will give such good results. A 35-80 I once had (and got rid of pronto) gave awful results, and my 28mm F2.8 AF prime when used for close ups is worse than the zoom. (That is why I have just bought a 28mm F2.8 AIS lens.)

 

Jay: Yes a 50mm prime + 2 element diopter will give excellent, and probably better, results. However the working distance will be small. The zoom gives shed loads of working distance allowing photography of wary insects such as dragonflies. This is a good point and I will incorporate it into my test results. In fact a 200mm prime + diopter will be better than the zoom, and I will add notes to this effect. However a lightweight zoom is more convenient than a bag full of primes.

 

However I was surprised to get such good results from the zoom. I also have pictures of a neighbours house (Windsor Castle) from the zoom that match results from my expensive primes.

 

Thanks, Leif.

[leif_goodwin8]

Jay: "And I also believe that if you tested some objects with depth, you would find the real short comings of the zoom. " How do you mean? Are you talking about bokeh?

[al_kaplan1]

Many zooms exhibit pin cushion or barrel distortion. Quality prime macro lenses won't show this problem. Try photographing sonething like graph paper or window screen and see if the lines are straight near the frame edges.

[leif_goodwin8]

Al. I will check this out of curiosity. However in the real world, such as nature work, photographing butterflies, a small amount of distortion pincussion/barrel will not show.