Macro Lenses...

[andrewbuchanan]

I know this is a bit of a stupid question... but when one has a "macro" lens, is this a lens that has all the abilities of a non-macro len, plus the added benefit of close focus? Or does the macro lens operate differently? For example if I have a 50mm-macro, can I do everything that a normal 50mm would do? Or would the 50mm-macro be more specifically for shooting something small up-close... like a object on a tabletop? Thanks for any advice.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Most zoom lenses will go into macro - they just have to decouple the rear element of the zoom from the rest of the mechanics and move it backwards with respect to the rest of the lens group. Not so sure about primes, though I have seen standard primes with a macro ring.

 

Phil

[GWilliamPatrickB]

Hi,

 

Most zoom lenses will go into macro - they just have to decouple the rear element of the zoom from the rest of the mechanics and move it backwards with respect to the rest of the lens group. Not so sure about primes, though I have seen standard primes with a macro ring.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have some Zeiss lenses that have been converted to Macros they can do everything they could before and close focus. If the conversion is done properly there are no worries. However there are only a handfull of lens techs I would let near a lens for the conversion process as it is not quite a easy/simple as it sounds..

 

GWPB

[Dan Salzmann]

In terms of focal length characteristics, macro and non-macro lenses are identical.

Fixed focal length or prime macro lenses however are designed for optimum sharpness at close distances. They can be somewhat "cruel" on faces because of this.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

All lenses are potential macro lenses without modification. Medium format still cameras like the Mamiya RZ67 works exactly like that with the bellows - bring a lens far enough from the film plane, it'll be a macro lens. The extension rings you get for SLRs work in the exact same way.

 

Maybe I'm a bit irreverent, but I don't believe for a second that macro lenses are "especially modified to handle macro better". It's all bull***t I think. All they've done to them is make them focus closer. Also, with the shallow DoF on macro, and the size of the object in frame, that's the least quality-needing end of the spectrum of a lens. I'd take a lens designed to be sharper at infinity and softer at macro any day over the opposite.

[Max Jacoby]

According to the Arri Press release regarding the Master Primes, they mentioned that previously in lens design it was always about finding a compromise between close-focus and breathing. So breathing might be a problem with macro lenses, since for macro work one doesn't usually focus-pull (and therefore breathing is less of a consideration)

[David Mullen ASC]

Also, I seem to recall that the barrel rotation for Macro lenses tends to be longer, allowing more space between the barrel's distance marks for the near objects. This might get annoying when using the lens as a non-Macro lens and having to rotate the barrel so much for a simple focus-rack as the object-to-camera distance changed.

 

I found by accident that one of the side-benefits of using a tilt-focus lens like the 45mm with the lens left unslanted, i.e. normal, is that the lens focuses closer than some 50mm primes.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi.

 

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, a macro lens has inherently no breathing correction at all. This is particularly apparent when you're in the macro range of a zoom - I'm never sure whether you're zooming to focus or focussing to zoom.

 

I shot some wildlife stuff with bees on lavender flowers once which required extensive focus pulling with macro.

 

Phil

[GWilliamPatrickB]

Also, I seem to recall that the barrel rotation for Macro lenses tends to be longer, allowing more space between the barrel's distance marks for the near objects.  This might get annoying when using the lens as a non-Macro lens and having to rotate the barrel so much for a simple focus-rack as the object-to-camera distance changed.

 

I found by accident that one of the side-benefits of using a tilt-focus lens like the 45mm with the lens left unslanted, i.e. normal, is that the lens focuses closer than some 50mm primes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The lenses I have, which are conversions, behave normally until you reach the macro end. At that point, the more "macro" you get the further the barrel rotates. Like I said before, depth of field questions are for another day. Really though, I have not ever asked for a focus pull at 2" to 2 1/4".

It would be pure misery for the 1st AC as rhe closer you get the further the pull.

 

GWPB

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Just wanna slip this question in here.

 

When people say prime lenses, what do they mean? Fixed focal length?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yes. The point here is that a prime lens, theoretically, only has to have two pieces of glass in it while a zoom needs at least, well, let's say four for the sake of simplicity. Real-world considerations mean that both types have more in all practical implementations, but the difference remains. More glass means more distortion, abberation and imperfection, so very high end work avoids zooms. It's possible to make very good zooms, but they become extermely close tolerance and therefore very expensive; they also become very physically large and heavy. The most complex lenses in general cinematography are probably anamorphic zooms, which have all the considerations of being a zoom, of being designed for very high end work with fine tolerances, and of being anamorphic. Panavision's most recent anamorphic zooms are absolutely gigantic, several feet long in themselves, and they still don't have the zoom range or minimum-focus distance of your average consumer camcorder - just to keep the quality up.

 

It's at this point super35 becomes attractive because you can then use spherical lenses and the zoom stops being heavier than the camera.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

More glass means more distortion, abberation and imperfection, so very high end work avoids zooms.

There are lots of Dops (Vilmos Zigmond and John Seale come to mind) who use zooms almost exclusively, even if they shoot anamorphic. 'The Perfect Storm' was shot mostly on anamorphic zooms for instance. But you are right that a zoom will not look quite as sharp as a good prime lens.

 

The most complex lenses in general cinematography are probably anamorphic zooms, which have all the considerations of being a zoom, of being designed for very high end work with fine tolerances, and of being anamorphic. Panavision's most recent anamorphic zooms are absolutely gigantic, several feet long in themselves, and they still don't have the zoom range or minimum-focus distance of your average consumer camcorder - just to keep the quality up.

 

In general anamorphic zooms are just spherical zooms with an anamorphic element screwed on at the back, which makes the lens one stop slower.

 

I think the best zoom available at the moment is the Angenieux Optimo 24mm-290mm which is fast (T2.8) and had a good minimum focus. If you happen to see the trailer for the 'Merchant of Venice' there is an extreme close-up of a seal ('the' seal actually) which was shot on the long end of the Optimo.

 

In addition there are zooms lenses that have macro functions, like the Hawk 46-230mm anamorphic and the Panavision 14.5-50mm.

 

As I was told, the Zeiss Master Primes are pretty much as good as it gets in optical design, there probably isn't much room for improvement anymore. So there is a tendency in lens design to go towards zoom lenses and get their quality up top to that of primes. Zooms like the above mentioned Panavison lens and the short Optimo (17-80mm) hava a stop (T 2.2) that is nearly equivalent to that of primes already. It is likely that in the future we will see zooms that are just as good as primes and prime lenses will only get used for special purposes (handheld, steadicam, very low light shots)

[Laurent Andrieux]

I'm never sure whether you're zooming to focus or focussing to zoom.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:lol:

 

That's right !

 

Actually, you're supposed to set the lens at the infinity, then focus with the macro ring, use the zoom ring as to set the focal length normaly, and focus again with the macro ring, not the focus ring...

 

It's just that when you are in macro, focus is no more kept when you change focal length, so you have to do it at the proper focal length you've chosen. The focus ring causes breath and is useless in macro.

 

It then becomes difficult to pull focus since you're supposed to do it with the macro ring. Focusing with the focus ring will work but defenitly cause breathing. It's not supposed to be used that way.

[Brad Grimmett]

It occured to me that no one has mentioned the difference between a "macro" lens and a "close focus" lens. Is there such thing as a macro prime? I've only ever seen close focus primes and macro zooms. I've been on many jobs that used "close focus" Primo's from Panavision, but I don't think I've ever seen close focus lenses of any other type. Do they exist? Is there such a thing as a close focus zoom?

Thanks.

[Max Jacoby]

There are primes dedicated for macro use.

 

Panavision use the 'close focus' description for their lenses where they have improved the minimum focus distance of a certain lens series. Primos (both spherical and anamorphic) come in regular and 'close focus' variety. But even the Close Focus Anamorphic Primos do not focus as closely as other 'regular' anamorphic lenses (like the Hawks for instance). In fact one cannot not use these Primos for macro work.

[Sam Wells]

"Really though, I have not ever asked for a focus pull at 2" to 2 1/4"."

 

I did things like 2" to 2 1/2" often in my tabletop days.

 

Zooming in macro can be cool, space becomes -- liquid :D

 

-Sam

[Tony Brown]

Best Macro lenses I've used are the 100mm T2.8 / 135mm T2.8 / 180mm T2.8 Moy Leitz.

 

They all focus offer 1:1 right back to infinity. The 'normal' distance range of say 6' to infinity the have normal barrel rotation and so can easily be used for no macro photography

[Stephan Schuh]

Modern cine-lenses like Cooke S4 and Ultraprimes work as regular Lenses as well as they focus to macro range (or rather close-focus range - macro starts with 1:1 as far as I remember). There are, or at least used to be, differences in the construction of lenses for extreme macro work. I remember from my time as a photographer´s intern, that you should use a lens on a macro-bellows the other way round, meaning the front lens facing the film. Nikon bellows offer converters for turning the lens. The reason for this strange habit is probably that in the macro range, the optical path is inverted. The distance from object to lens is then smaller than the distance from lens to filmplane. Special extreme macro lenses perform better on this "invertion" or are already inverted.

 

Modern cine-prime-lenses are only close-focus-capable because they have a floating lens element, like all the zooms have. This results in stronger breathing of the image while focusing, something that was hardly visible with old primes. Although this is sometimes a really big pain in the ass, I wouldn`t work without primes like S4 anymore because of their other advantages (less flaring, more definition etc.).

 

"Beste Grüße" from Germany!

Stephan