Tamron Introduces G2 of the 28-75mm/f2.8 in Z Mount

[mike_halliwell]

19 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Or I have the travel setup which might include a 100-400 lens that can do duty for birds/wildlife as well.

+1. The 100-400mm takes the ZTC 1.4 quite well....  not as good IQ as the 500mm PF at the resulting long end, but maintains the MFD for bugs and small beasties.

That's one of my pet annoyances as to the poor MFD of the longish Z primes.

I'd love someone to make a 1:1 300mm f4 macro. The old F mount 300mm f4 AFS was often praised for it's macro combo with a TC.

[ilkka_nissila]

21 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

+1. The 100-400mm takes the ZTC 1.4 quite well....  not as good IQ as the 500mm PF at the resulting long end, but maintains the MFD for bugs and small beasties.

That's one of my pet annoyances as to the poor MFD of the longish Z primes.

I'd love someone to make a 1:1 300mm f4 macro. The old F mount 300mm f4 AFS was often praised for it's macro combo with a TC.

That's not very likely to happen, the range of extensions required to go from infinity to 1:1 would be enormous and it would likely not be a practical lens unless it lost most of its focal length along the way. I recall that the 200 AF Micro is about 135mm or thereabouts at 1:1, which would make it only slightly tighter than the 105 MC ... I should do a side by side to check. The 300/4 is nice at its minimum focus (m = 1:4). 

[mike_halliwell]

9 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The 300/4 is nice at its minimum focus (m = 1:4). 

Very similar to the 300mm PF.

What I don't get (!) is that zoom lenses such as the Z100-400mm can have a so much better MDF than the Z400mm 4.5 prime.

1:2.6 v 1:6.3 is significant.

Maybe 1:2 ?

[ilkka_nissila]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

Very similar to the 300mm PF.

What I don't get (!) is that zoom lenses such as the Z100-400mm can have a so much better MDF than the Z400mm 4.5 prime.

1:2.6 v 1:6.3 is significant.

Maybe 1:2 ?

The zooms do it by sacrificing focal length and with a slow AF rack. Most people who invest in long primes want to keep as much of the focal length as possible upon close focus and the fastest AF.

Edited April 8 by ilkka_nissila

[roland_vink]

7 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

That's not very likely to happen, the range of extensions required to go from infinity to 1:1 would be enormous and it would likely not be a practical lens unless it lost most of its focal length along the way. I recall that the 200 AF Micro is about 135mm or thereabouts at 1:1, which would make it only slightly tighter than the 105 MC ... I should do a side by side to check. The 300/4 is nice at its minimum focus (m = 1:4). 

A 300mm macro lens would not focus by extension, it would have internal focus like most 180mm and 200mm macro lenses with significant loss of focal length at close range. The Nikon AF 200/4 micro focuses down to 0.5m for 1:1 magnification where the focal length is near 135mm. If we scale that up to 300mm we can expect a close focus distance of about 0.75m with a focal length reduced to 200mm or so.

Note that almost all 100/105mm macro lenses also have significant reduction in focal length at close range. The F mount 105mm micro lenses focus to 0.312m with a focal length around 80mm. The Z 105 MC has a shorter focus distance of 0.29m at 1:1, which suggests a focal length less than 75mm. The new Panasonic Lumix 100mm macro has very short minimum focus distance of just 204mm - less than the AFD 60/2.8 micro - suggesting a focal length near 50mm at 1:1. My old AIS 105/4 is an exception, it focuses purely by extension, extending 52.5mm by itself, and requiring the PN-11 extension tube to give the full 105mm extension for 1:1 magnification. The focus distance is 0.42mm, not far short of the 0.5m from the 200mm micro.

All this is to say that 200mm or 300mm macro lenses would have a much longer working distance than a 100mm macro lens, even with focal length shortening at close range. Among the long prime lenses, the 300/4 lenses tend to allow relatively high magnifications - the AFS 300/4 gets to 1:3.7, while the 300/4 PF gets to 1:4.1. Adding a closeup diopter to the front will give even higher magnifications, with the loss of some working distance.

[ilkka_nissila]

7 hours ago, roland_vink said:

A 300mm macro lens would not focus by extension, it would have internal focus like most 180mm and 200mm macro lenses with significant loss of focal length at close range. The Nikon AF 200/4 micro focuses down to 0.5m for 1:1 magnification where the focal length is near 135mm. If we scale that up to 300mm we can expect a close focus distance of about 0.75m with a focal length reduced to 200mm or so.

Note that almost all 100/105mm macro lenses also have significant reduction in focal length at close range. The F mount 105mm micro lenses focus to 0.312m with a focal length around 80mm. The Z 105 MC has a shorter focus distance of 0.29m at 1:1, which suggests a focal length less than 75mm. The new Panasonic Lumix 100mm macro has very short minimum focus distance of just 204mm - less than the AFD 60/2.8 micro - suggesting a focal length near 50mm at 1:1. My old AIS 105/4 is an exception, it focuses purely by extension, extending 52.5mm by itself, and requiring the PN-11 extension tube to give the full 105mm extension for 1:1 magnification. The focus distance is 0.42mm, not far short of the 0.5m from the 200mm micro.

All this is to say that 200mm or 300mm macro lenses would have a much longer working distance than a 100mm macro lens, even with focal length shortening at close range. Among the long prime lenses, the 300/4 lenses tend to allow relatively high magnifications - the AFS 300/4 gets to 1:3.7, while the 300/4 PF gets to 1:4.1. Adding a closeup diopter to the front will give even higher magnifications, with the loss of some working distance.

Hmm. I had assumed the 105 MC has greater focal length at close focus because it felt that way in use (i.e. narrower than I had expected for a given situation), but I wasn't working at 1:1. I'll compare it to the 200 mm side by side when I have the chance.

 

Nikon hasn't shown much interest in updating the 200 Micro whose latest version is 30 years old. There was never an AF-S version and there hasn't been rumors about a 200mm MC let alone 300mm. I think the issue is that for many small subjects you want to be able to photograph the subject from different vantage points, and with long macros, shooting from above is typically not possible. Also the autofocus speed would likely be relatively slow compared to non-macro 300 mm lenses and even with the 105 MC there can be a lot of work to get it to find the subject in the close-up range (mirrorless doesn't do any favors here where it comes to close-up AF). With the 100-400 also I find it requires a lot of manual help to find the subject when in close range. Then there may be optical concerns, in macro lenses the best specialist lenses (macro only, not infinity to macro) usually have relatively short focal lengths.

[mike_halliwell]

3 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

Nikon hasn't shown much interest in updating the 200 Micro whose latest version is 30 years old.

There's quite a big gap between the Z135mm Plena and the Z400mm 4.5 prime, macro or not! No 180mm, 200mm or 300mm lenses.

Z200mm f2? I'm sure it could be a LOT lighter than the old F mount VR models  😉

[ilkka_nissila]

3 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

There's quite a big gap between the Z135mm Plena and the Z400mm 4.5 prime, macro or not! No 180mm, 200mm or 300mm lenses.

Z200mm f2? I'm sure it could be a LOT lighter than the old F mount VR models  😉

Right, for sure that is a big gap. Sony now has a 300/2.8 that weights 1.47kg which is about one half of the Nikon lens's weight. 😉 So yes, the optical and mechanical technologies have clearly evolved in 20 years in the sense that lower weight is possible. The mirrorless part may also play some role allowing the lens elements to be more on the rear end.  On the other hand the Nikon 300/4 PF is one half of the 300/2.8 Sony's weight.

[Dieter Schaefer]

13 hours ago, roland_vink said:

The Nikon AF 200/4 micro focuses down to 0.5m for 1:1 magnification where the focal length is near 135mm.

FWIW, here are some working distances (that I personally often find more important than the MFD): https://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/macro-information/macro-lens-working-distance.html

 

 

[mike_halliwell]

Humm, is there a reason the 85MM DX macro is close to real focal length at 1:1?

[Dieter Schaefer]

And I wonder which lens the 70-180mm f/3.5D might be? Mine was a f/4.5-5.6 🤔

37 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Humm, is there a reason the 85MM DX macro is close to real focal length at 1:1?

According to this site: https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/WO2020-119907_Example01P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis the focal length at 1:1 is actually about 66mm.

[roland_vink]

12 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

Hmm. I had assumed the 105 MC has greater focal length at close focus because it felt that way in use (i.e. narrower than I had expected for a given situation), but I wasn't working at 1:1. I'll compare it to the 200 mm side by side when I have the chance.

 

Nikon hasn't shown much interest in updating the 200 Micro whose latest version is 30 years old. There was never an AF-S version and there hasn't been rumors about a 200mm MC let alone 300mm. I think the issue is that for many small subjects you want to be able to photograph the subject from different vantage points, and with long macros, shooting from above is typically not possible. Also the autofocus speed would likely be relatively slow compared to non-macro 300 mm lenses and even with the 105 MC there can be a lot of work to get it to find the subject in the close-up range (mirrorless doesn't do any favors here where it comes to close-up AF). With the 100-400 also I find it requires a lot of manual help to find the subject when in close range. Then there may be optical concerns, in macro lenses the best specialist lenses (macro only, not infinity to macro) usually have relatively short focal lengths.

My focal length estimates at 1:1 are just that: estimates. I am assuming the lenses behave like a perfect "thin lens" where the focus distance at 1:1 is 4x the focal length. For example, the 105 MC has a focus distance of 0.29m at 1:1, a thin lens with the same parameters would have a focal length of 72.5mm. Modern macro lenses have complex optics which may mean the focus distance is shorter or greater than an equivalent thin lens.

I remember seeing an animation showing how the focal length of the AFS 105 micro changes with focal distance. At far distances the focal length hardly changes before rapidly shrinking at close range. At close range this makes framing difficult since small adjustments to the focus distance have a large effect on the framing and magnification (focus breathing). I suspect the 105 MC has more even reduction in focal length through the entire focus range, which would reduce the amount of focus breathing. This could explain the perceived difference in field of view compared to earlier models.

The AFD 200 micro was always a very expensive lens which made it unaffordable for many photographers and resulted in relatively low sales. Sigma and Tamron had macro lenses with long focal length of 150mm and 180mm, which shows there is a market for this type of lens. I think an updated lens from Nikon, with improved focus system and VR could be popular. Ideally it would be a 100-200 f/4 zoom or similar, with decent tripod mount. It should come with a dedicated closeup lens for magnifications beyond 1:1 (or even a built-in close up lens that can be switched in like the big TC telephotos). An efficient focus limiter would ensure the focus speed is adequate.

 

[ilkka_nissila]

I haven't yet found the time to test the working distances of the 105 MC, 200 Micro and 100-400 mm but I read the 105 MC working distance is 1 mm longer than the F-mount 105 VR's (at 1:1). However, 1:1 doesn't really interest me that much as there is such little depth of field that it can be impractical to use without focus stacking (and that's only going to work for subjects that are still). For many situations being able to shoot from around 1:1.5 to 1:3 is useful, and at f/11 there can be adequate depth of field that covers enough of the subject to be useful without stacking. I'm interested in checking how the working distances compare between these lenses at the maximum magnification of the 100-400 (1:2.63), and will be testing it soon.

 

I did my first practical close-up shoot with the 100-400 on frogs but alas, the conditions were wet & muddy and my camera malfunctioned. I found that at the location it was difficult to get the 100-400 low enough for optimal shooting angle, and a shorter and smaller lens could have worked out better, allowing me to get closer to the water surface and also to the subjects. However, there was a lot of mud and movement of the camera had to be done using a complicated process working with my rain cover, a small pillow, and a camping mattress. 😉 Although the zoom on the 100-400 is not as stiff or slow as the 200-500's, it still requires a bit of force and so it couldn't be done rapidly under the conditions. I will revisit the location soon and look for other places where I might have easier access to the surface of the water. The image quality of the 100-400 at close range was good, I couldn't really tell any noticeable difference in sharpness to what I'm used to seeing from macro lenses in this practical application; I mean a side-by-side comparison might reveal something but it was not like the 100-400 was soft in any sense of the word. However, being a fairly big lens it is more clumsy to operate for close-ups on the ground than a 105 or 200 mm Micro. When working at long focal length close-ups, one can often miss something in the foreground that leads to a blurry distraction in the images (when the lens is stopped down). The Z cameras show the viewfinder image at f/5.6 when the shooting aperture is f/11, and so the depth of field is not shown correctly by default (not sure if there is a preview available, need to assign that to a Fn button for these situations). Focusing on the 100-400 at close range is fairly slow and can take some time to get to the right subject. Under less wet conditions I could have more easily operated the manual focus on the lens but of course since I wasn't using a tripod but a pillow, use of the rings was compromised by the fact that the lens was lying on the pillow. However, I don't have any tripod + head combination that could get me as low on the ground as this.

 

Anyway, I'm not terribly keen how the handling of long macros is in the field, there are fewer camera angles that one can work a given subject from, and a bigger lens makes for less convenient management of the position also near the ground. However, one fits the lens to the situation and I'm sure I'll be using the 100-400 from time to time for this purpose. I suppose it might also be worth testing the 1.4 X with it for these close-ups, but I'm not a big fan of TCs and there isn't much light to work with in this location (sunlight may be available during the day but if one wants a low sun angle then it might not be).

 

[ilkka_nissila]

Okay, so I performed working-distance measurements with the MC 105/2.8, AF Micro 200/4D, and Z 100-400 at 400mm setting. Each setup was positioned on a tripod in turn, and the position relative to my flat target was moved to achieve 1:3 magnification (so that they all are capable of achieving this, and also it's within the range of common magnifications that I need in practical close-up photography). Roland was quite right in that the longer lenses did have longer working distances though the 100-400 clearly is not as far ahead of the 200 micro as might have hoped from just looking at its nominal focal length.

 

The working distances were measured from the front of the lens without hood, and I estimate my accuracy to be of the order of 1 cm (but do leave room for human error, as I did these only once). 😉 

 

105 MC working distance at 1:3 is 31 cm.

200 (AF) Micro working distance at 1:3 is 67 cm.

Z 100-400 at zoom setting of 400 mm working distance at 1:3 is 89 cm.

 

So the zoom does give a bit more space to the subject and allow photography from a longer distance in this magnification range, and it may have some benefits (zooming, for sure, and VR in the lens). However, I think for many situations of this kind (i.e. close-up photography at sizeable working distance) the 200 Micro is superior because it's easier to handle than the 100-400 and it allows higher magnifications up to 1:1 for situations that require them. When I use it with a mirrorless camera, I typically use focus peaking although other focus aids are also available. On (mid and high end) DSLRs, it has autofocus. The 200 Micro also autofocuses better at close distances than the 100-400 which can lose the plot completely in close range (but that's probably more to do with the nature of mirrorless camera AF than the lens). Of course, the 200 Micro AF produces some sound as well, and there is no direct manual override (one needs to turn a switch).

 

Optically the 105 MC is superior to the other two lenses in terms of bokeh but also CA (over the 200 Micro, by a mile) and sharpness (over the zoom, though all three are sharp at f/11). The 105 MC can be used safely at wider apertures whereas with the 200 I always stop down to f/8-11 to minimize CA. For frogs, f/11 seems appropriate, anyway.

Edited April 17 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

5 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I suppose it might also be worth testing the 1.4 X with it for these close-ups

It's often my goto combo for wary butterflies @ f13 although you still have to try to be parallel to their wings.

DOF v High ISO noise is a delicate balance.

I found Auto Area and animal eye AF to work OK on toads. I think the algorhythm just looks for concentric rings. 😉

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, ilkka_nissila said:

the 100-400 which can lose the plot completely in close range

Yes it does! Phase Detect is very poor when it's a long way OOF.

A user defined focus limiter would be handy, so maybe MIN > 1m maybe?

[roland_vink]

13 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I haven't yet found the time to test the working distances of the 105 MC, 200 Micro and 100-400 mm but I read the 105 MC working distance is 1 mm longer than the F-mount 105 VR's (at 1:1).

The F-mount 105 VR focuses to 314mm at 1:1 magnification. The lens itself is 116mm (measured from lens mount), and the flange distance is 46.5mm, leaving 151.5mm free working distance between the front of the lens barrel and the focus plane.

The Z 105 MC focuses to 290mm at 1:1. The lens is longer than the 105 VR at 140mm and the Z-mount flange distance is 16mm, leaving 134mm between the lens and focus plane, so the free working distance is 17.5mm shorter.

A longer working distance is useful for insects and other small animals which would be scared away by a big lens getting too close. For plants and other small objects, the free working distance is less important as long as there is sufficient working distance to allow adequate lighting on the subject - if the working distance is too short the lens may cast a shadow over the subject. There is also the risk of bumping the subject when setting up the camera. As long as the working distance is adequate, I often find the total focus distance is more important. A longer focus distance makes it easier to set up the camera (and tripod) in a convenient spot, especially if the subject is in a hard to reach position. If the focus distance is short it may not be possible to set up a tripod close enough, for example, if the subject is very low down or high up a bank or tree. There is also less chance of disturbing the subject, for example, a dew-covered flower in a bush, but in the process of setting up the tripod you have to push against nearer branches which cause the flower to shake - the dew drops fall off or the flower is shaking, and by the time it stops moving a breeze has picked up so it is impossible to get the shot! If the lens had a longer focus distance you could have set the tripod further away without touching the bush and taken the picture.

This is a long way from the original topic of this thread! 😀

[ilkka_nissila]

11 hours ago, roland_vink said:

The F-mount 105 VR focuses to 314mm at 1:1 magnification. The lens itself is 116mm (measured from lens mount), and the flange distance is 46.5mm, leaving 151.5mm free working distance between the front of the lens barrel and the focus plane.

The Z 105 MC focuses to 290mm at 1:1. The lens is longer than the 105 VR at 140mm and the Z-mount flange distance is 16mm, leaving 134mm between the lens and focus plane, so the free working distance is 17.5mm shorter.

A longer working distance is useful for insects and other small animals which would be scared away by a big lens getting too close. For plants and other small objects, the free working distance is less important as long as there is sufficient working distance to allow adequate lighting on the subject - if the working distance is too short the lens may cast a shadow over the subject. There is also the risk of bumping the subject when setting up the camera. As long as the working distance is adequate, I often find the total focus distance is more important. A longer focus distance makes it easier to set up the camera (and tripod) in a convenient spot, especially if the subject is in a hard to reach position. If the focus distance is short it may not be possible to set up a tripod close enough, for example, if the subject is very low down or high up a bank or tree. There is also less chance of disturbing the subject, for example, a dew-covered flower in a bush, but in the process of setting up the tripod you have to push against nearer branches which cause the flower to shake - the dew drops fall off or the flower is shaking, and by the time it stops moving a breeze has picked up so it is impossible to get the shot! If the lens had a longer focus distance you could have set the tripod further away without touching the bush and taken the picture.

That 1 mm difference (which is wrong) I derived by checking working distances from two websites and subtracting them, leading to an erroneous result (because of the source data). I checked it now experimentally and at both 1:1 and 1:3, the F-mount 105 VR retains about 2 cm greater working distance over the 105 MC. Sorry for the error, sometimes it's best to just do one's own experiments rather than trust numbers people publish on various websites... 😉 

 

You're also correct on the importance of the focus distance for the reasons you mention. There are options such as the use of a lateral arm that allows the placement of the camera closer to the subject, e.g., when the subject is in water and one doesn't wish to place a tripod foot in the water (for either because of the impact of the dirt and water on the tripod locks or simply because one doesn't want to disturb the water and spook the animals or affect the content of other images by e.g. spoiling the fresh snow). However, lateral arms tend to weigh something and they can be a hassle to bring into the woods. There are also some tripods specifically made for close-up photography. While I have a Gitzo lateral arm which fits my 3- and 4-series tripods, I rarely carry it into the field because of the extra weight.  I also have a Manfrotto Super Clamp which can be attached to a tripod leg and can give some low angle positions while the tripod legs are safely on the bank side of the river.

 

There are also visual differences between focal lengths, as the longer focal lengths lead to more magnified backgrounds relative to the main subject framed in a particular way, and so it's easier to get clean simplified backgrounds using a long macro. However, sometimes simple can be too simple, and a wider angle of view shows more of the environment.

 

 

 

Edited April 18 by ilkka_nissila