My knowledge of photography is rather limited and I've not had a decent camera since about '93 (OM1), but this thing looks useful:
https://newatlas.com/laowa-24mm-f14-...be-lens/55740/
Printable View
My knowledge of photography is rather limited and I've not had a decent camera since about '93 (OM1), but this thing looks useful:
https://newatlas.com/laowa-24mm-f14-...be-lens/55740/
At $1200 ?? Nah, Ill stick to my £300 Tamron 90mm, f2.8, shooting at F20 with twin speedflashes :)
It will do for now :)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/g8ina/...57626520092271
It's hard for me to say much because that page doesn't render properly (Dolphon on Android) and about a third of it (the left third) is missing.
I can't even see if it actually is really 'macro', or just close-up. Whether that matters depends entirely ob what kind of pictures you're trying to get.
What that certainly does look good for is getting close to things otherwise tricky to reach. It's innovative, and that's a win.
However, true macro has several serious challengss. First, you typically need to get pretty close to the object to get real magnification. The longer the focal length of the lens, the less close you have to get and therefore the less likely you are to 'spook' an ambulatory object .... like a bee. A flower, on the other hand, won't fly off. That said, the little beggars love to wave about given even the slightest hint of a whiff of a trace of breeze.
Which brings me to the next challenge .... extremely small 'depth of field'. As you said your photographic knowledge is rusty, I'll remind you that that is the range of distancez from the camera that, for any given camera settings, are in-focus. Outside, and that means either too close or too far away, the image will be blurred. For real macro, that critical depth of field may be a few millimetres .... or less.
And that is why a hint of breeze can be a right pain in the tush.
So a question to ask ... if that stick is true macro, implying a very tight depth of field, can you hold the camera still enough to stop a lens that long waving about so much you can't get it consistently in focus? If it's "closeup" then maybe, but if it's proper macro ... let's just say I wouldn't want to try.
The next issue is light. The nature of macro is that the aperture settings you need to get real magnification make subject lighgting a challenge, especialy as you and your gear can block a lot of natural light is you're not very careful. That sgick lens might actually help a bit there, but I question what light loss is involved in the device itself.
Finally, a lot of macro is done indoors (minimal air movement), in a controlled environment, perhaps with table-top lighting. But that doesn't seem what that stick is really about. It looks to me to be suited for out and about, and that is precisely when most of the above cballenges are at their most demanding, especially light.
So is that "any good"? I honestly don't know but I suspect it depends on what you intend to use it for, and just how macro you want to be. Macro is my photographic love, and I doubt it'd offer me much. But I kind-of extreme. If you want a pretty close-up flower, maybe. But if you want a detailed shot if the bumps on a speck of pollen, stuck on the hairs on the leg of a bee currently in that flower .... well, I'm sceptical.
So it's probably a horses for courses thing. The right tool for the job depends on the job. My interest in macro is probably a small part of the wider field.
By the way, the generally accepted definition of 'macro' is where the captured image, traditionally on a negative (or slide) is at least the same size as the original object. If a flower is 1cm across, the image on negative is at least 1cm (i.e. a 1:1 ratio) across, or bigger. I normally go up to 5:1 because it's really not terribly viable to go higher than that with a mobile kit, and damn hard even at 5:1. Bigger than that really is a table-top job with a fixed rig and a different set of challenges.
It seems to use a very complex optical arrangement:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/460703...ife-size-macro
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/art...aldiagram.jpeg
It does make me wonder how well fringing will be controlled,and how much light loss there will be.
Another thing is Laowa only make manual focus lenses,so you would need a camera with quite a largish and bright viewfinder to be able to get critical focus accuracy.
From my experimentations with my old 105MM/F4 Micro Nikkor,trying to do focus on the fly is not as easy as it seems,and OFC that assumes totally still air and subjects which are relatively still.
The problem with "very complex" optical arrangements is that, done well, they open up optical possiblities but, done less well they create significant imsge degradation. The point about fringing is well-made.
Personally, I'm less bothered about manual focus having used a manual-only macro lens (and an auto one) for quite a while. It's almost implicit in real macro. Even the auto one os usually set to manual. The point about the demands on bright viewfinders, though, I heartily second. Mine, on a now venerable Canon DSLR is, at best, okay and does not make my macro life any easier.
Macro-related pun intended?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Apparently!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Bagnaj97
you just need to Bee careful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagnaj97
Nice !Quote:
Originally Posted by g8ina