Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

60 mm macro - is it really macro?

27 posts in this topic

Posted

I have two macro lenses with my Nikon camera, the 60 and the 40, and I love taking macro pictures of flowers and stuff. I love how close I can get with the Nikkor macro lenses. Now I am very interested in getting the Fujinon 60 mm, but I am reading it's not a 1:1, but a mere 1:2 magnification. Plus, it doesn't let me get close (26 cm). I am hesitant to buy it now, because I am worried it's not letting me produce the same quality of pictures.

Do you own this lens? Will it be a good macro lens?

Thanks for any info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your figures are correct but as we're talking macro and ultra careful manual focus - how about using your Nikons via an adapter? The 40mm becomes your 60mm and you get a 90mm from the 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A true Macro is 1 to 1 but..... half lifesize is dam close :) The question is... have you ever used or use often at full one to one ? It could be that half life size is more than enough. If you get desperate you can always crop too. Just a thought :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have two macro lenses with my Nikon camera, the 60 and the 40, and I love taking macro pictures of flowers and stuff. I love how close I can get with the Nikkor macro lenses. Now I am very interested in getting the Fujinon 60 mm, but I am reading it's not a 1:1, but a mere 1:2 magnification. Plus, it doesn't let me get close (26 cm). I am hesitant to buy it now, because I am worried it's not letting me produce the same quality of pictures.

Do you own this lens? Will it be a good macro lens?

Thanks for any info!

26 cm??? Wow, that is not very close at all. If that is as close as it will focus, it's not a real macro lens in my book. I have several regular lenses that focus down to 0.3 m and that is nowhere near macro shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have two macro lenses with my Nikon camera, the 60 and the 40, and I love taking macro pictures of flowers and stuff. I love how close I can get with the Nikkor macro lenses. Now I am very interested in getting the Fujinon 60 mm, but I am reading it's not a 1:1, but a mere 1:2 magnification. Plus, it doesn't let me get close (26 cm). I am hesitant to buy it now, because I am worried it's not letting me produce the same quality of pictures.

Do you own this lens? Will it be a good macro lens?

Thanks for any info!

I shoot lots of macro and you'd be better off buying an adapter to use your nikon 60mm if you are really concerned about 1:1. I have the Fuji 60mm for general purpose macro and I enjoy the nice working distance. In fact it's considered a good trait of a macro lens if there is some useful Front Working Distance (FWD) which is the space between front element of lens and subject. This is desireable for the sake of lighting the subject and not frightening off flying insects and spiders. The Nikon 60mm (and the 40mm is even worse) has such a short FWD that the shadow cast by the lens barrel can creep into the image area. It is also very difficult with those lenses to use flash when focusing in the 1:1 range.

Right now I'm using the Fuji 60mm for general purpose and it's a wonderfully sharp and capable lens though unfortunately very susceptible to flare when shooting in strong light even with the hood in place.

When I need more magnification than 1:2 I break out my B+W +10 diopter close up filter. This doesn't degrade the quality of the lens too much as I have a 58mm and I use a stepping ring to get it to 39mm and so I'm using the middle (best part) of the close up filter. This gets me in the neighbourhood of 1:1 with still decent working distance.

If I need 1:1 with higher quality I'll use my Nikon adapter and a BR-2A reversing ring to reverse my Nikon MF 50mm 1.8 AIS lens.

If I need 2:1-4:1 (double to four times life size) I'll use extension tubes with the reversed 50mm which cuts down the FWD but gives good magnification.

If I need 9:1 or greater I reverse my Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 lens (picking up a used Nikkor MF 28mm f/2.8 E series for this won't set you back much and is surprisingly good when reversed) and extension tubes for massive magnification but you'll need a super rigid tripod and a macro focusing rail to attempt such high magnifications. Plus FWD disappears pretty quick as you increase the magnification of the reversed wide angle using extension tubes, to the point you have to watch out for your point of focus drifting into the inside of your lens (becoming virtual focus) and rendering your setup useless forcing you back a step in magnification.

Here is a 1:2 shot of part of a Canadian $10 bill from the 60mm for you to have a peek at:

20120405-_DSF0577

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A true Macro is 1 to 1 but..... half lifesize is dam close

:)

The question is... have you ever used or use often at full one to one ? It could be that half life size is more than enough. If you get desperate you can always crop too. Just a thought

:)

I'm not that serious about macro, but sometimes I want to get real close.

DSC_3993+%281%29.jpg

Thank you for your feedback, everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think 1:1 in FF isn't the same as in APS-C, right? In FF it means, that you can take a sensor-size photo from a 36mm long subject (ca. 24mm in APS-C). So 1:2 in APS-C means 48mm, that's a 1:1.3 ratio in terms of FF. Not that bad... Or am I wrong??

Nice arachnaphobia-therapie-shot by the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Surely 1:1 is 1:1 regardless of sensor size - all the effective lens focal length does is increase/decrease the working distance to get that 1:1.

1:1 is the reproduction ratio of the subject at the native resolution of the camera in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think 1:1 in FF isn't the same as in APS-C, right? In FF it means, that you can take a sensor-size photo from a 36mm long subject (ca. 24mm in APS-C). So 1:2 in APS-C means 48mm, that's a 1:1.3 ratio in terms of FF. Not that bad... Or am I wrong??

Nice arachnaphobia-therapie-shot by the way!

The lens' ability to project a 1:1 image is unaffected by the sensor size. Imagine you had a projector (lens) set up to project an image onto a screen (sensor) where an image of a person was a full length life size projection. Now if you reduced the size of the projector screen (crop sensor) to only display the head and shoulders of the person the screen would display less of the projected image but the image would still be life size. Only if we move the projector (lens) can we affect magnification. For instance moving the projector (lens) further away from the screen (sensor) will make the image grow in size and is how extension tubes work, they move the optical centre of the lens further from the imaging plane thus causing an enlarged imaging circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

26 cm??? Wow, that is not very close at all. If that is as close as it will focus, it's not a real macro lens in my book. I have several regular lenses that focus down to 0.3 m and that is nowhere near macro shooting.

I don't think you can judge the qualities of a genuine macro lens on how close it can focus - the min focussing distance of my Canon EF100 Macro lens is 31cm, while the Canon EF 180L macro lens (in my dreams) has a min focusing distance of 43cm! In fact, it's generally regarded that - particularly with wildlife close-ups - the greater the minimum working distance of a true macro lens, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your figures are correct but as we're talking macro and ultra careful manual focus - how about using your Nikons via an adapter? The 40mm becomes your 60mm and you get a 90mm from the 60.

Second this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i use the raynox dcr 250 on my 18-55, works very well upto a point but better suited with the 60mm lens allowing you to get much higher magnification without loss of quality and at around £40-50 well worth it.

sample shots her with the 60mm lens. alternative cheap choice get an m42 adapter and you can pick up 135mm prime m42 lens for under £30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

can you send me an image including the raynox mounted on your cam with the 60mm?

would be curious..

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hi Karinatwork - thanks for asking this question. I am considering selling all my Canon gear because I love the Fuji X lenses but I need a decent macro for shooting jewellery and the reviews of the 60mm for macro work have not been flattering. Markdphotoguy's answer is really useful and makes me feel more comfortable about using this lens with a diopter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I use a set with +1, +2, +3 dioptric lenses (alone or together)

This is the result Your text to link...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I use a set with +1, +2, +3 dioptric lenses (alone or tighter)

This is the result Your text to link...

That is hellish good Peter - may I inquire as to your method of focusing?

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I move my body front and rear :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Deanmessenger- how do you mount the DCR 250 to the 60mm lens? According to their site Raynox do not make a 39mm adapter ring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I move my body front and rear :-)

What about the camera though? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anyone use this lens for portraits as well as macro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For what it's worth - I bought the 60mm macro for my X-Pro1 and ended up being surprised at how close it "didn't" focus. I was expecting to be able to get a LOT closer. I came from a Sigma 50mm macro that would focus INSANELY close to anything I put it in front of - where the 60mm Fuji macro was just nowhere near that in my honest opinion. I ended up returning it after just not using it enough at all to justify the cost.

For the first half hour with it I thought something was seriously wrong with it, because it refused to focus close up, then I realized I had to back up quite a way to get it to focus. It just wasn't for me in the long run. But again this was coming from a pretty extreme close up lens on my Nikon D700.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anyone use this lens for portraits as well as macro?

Me!

you can see here some portraits. Your text to link...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The 60mm f2.4 is a great portrait lens from the results I've seen. The sharpness is that non-edgy sharpness which is needed in a portrait lens and the bokeh is superb. However, many are unhappy with it's max aperture (they shouldn't be IMO) and it is a bit slow in AF so there are used examples around and very likely there will be many more at even lower prices once the 56mm f1.4 comes on line and 60mm users sell them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

More casual macro, but still good enough to get some fun shots of flowers and stuff in. I haven't done any serious bugs or anything yet, but I was satisfied with what I got from this as a macro lens, and the portrait is superb in good light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0