Leong23
Senior Member
afs micro 60 portraits ftw
FTW 85mm f1.4 for portrait. :bsmilie:
I will never use my CZ100f2 for portrait.
afs micro 60 portraits ftw
considering. for sure is i won't be shooting portraits all year round ~![]()
unless you are going into macro.
if you are going into portrait, don't waste money for tammy.
i want to use macro for macro, mainly small figures i have collecting dust that i want to clean up and shoot, other than that maybe tag along with leong when he go out to shoot etc ~Ro-Ro, you're using a Nikon with a hot CCD sensor right?
Initially, a lot of togs think that a macro is great for shooting portraits. Fantastic...almost razor like sharpness, high contrast and very vivid results.
That's initially.
Soon, you begin to realise that the slightest imperfection in skin, make-up starts showing up very clearly, and all that sharpness and high contrast then starts becoming a curse, because no amount of DI work can ever replace the series of specific optical abbreations that make 'portrait' lenses so highly regarded (macro lenses are super highly corrected remember?).
In fact, the hard core portrait masters don;t even like carl zeiss lenses after awhile, because of the MTF curves and the too high contrast that true blue CZ lenses give. They opt for high performance (higher than CZ even) Leitz lenses that have a more gentle contrast, or the ultimate portrait lenses: Rodenstocks.
Bottom line? Stick to normal series lenses and not macro for portrait work.
i want to use macro for macro, mainly small figures i have collecting dust that i want to clean up and shoot, other than that maybe tag along with leong when he go out to shoot etc ~
Even those figures can be shot with other lenses... no need macro.
But if you wish to pick up macro insect photography... then go ahead.![]()
i want to use macro for macro, mainly small figures i have collecting dust that i want to clean up and shoot, other than that maybe tag along with leong when he go out to shoot etc ~
those very small the size of your thumb figures leh :dunno:
surprised i didn't choke on them when i was young :sweat:
those very small the size of your thumb figures leh :dunno:
surprised i didn't choke on them when i was young :sweat:
Oh, hokay.
Eeu neber say mah!
Details.....
At any rate, there are much cheaper wayas to shoot macro, very very high quality without buying a dedicated macro lens. One way is auto extension tubes. Also got lots of other very cheap ways like reversing the lens and I've read of die-hard macro shooters getting out of this world results with a Raynox (Leong?) macro converter ...
i actually never recommand raynox......the edge is very soft, many ppls don't notice that because all their "macro" shots are heavily cropped.
Reversed lens will be a much cheaper choice with no degrading of IQ, but it need more practice. If it is use indoor with still life, it should be fairly easy.
Uncropped image taken using reversed 24mm
![]()
Thanks for the clarification Leong.
Now I see and understand why the Raynox is so popular among macro shooters. :bigeyes:
actually thinking between 28-75 and 90
i still don't understand
they like the soft edges?
i still don't understand
they like the soft edges?