[photoptimist]

Too much work to comment all posts who contest my claim.
I will leave it at one who was particularly interesting:
This gentleman wrote" new macro lens designs have floating elements".
Another misconception I am afraid.
Floating elements were first used to improve close range IQ of wide angle lenses.
It has nothing to do with macro lens design. Later zoom lenses also used floating elements.
A zoom lens has nothing to do with macro although some manufactureres give zoom lenses a macro label.

Apparently, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, and Tamron did not get your message that floating elements can't be used to make a better macro lens. In fact, both the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 and EF Macro Photo 65mm f/2.8 1~5x actually have two floating element groups.


Where floating elements were first used is irrelevant. They've become widespread in both modern primes and zooms of all types. A big reason for their applicability to all lenses is that they enable design optimization at more than one point in the lenses' range of operation.

Unlike Carl Zeiss' engineers in the 1960s who were forced to compromise on either macro or infinity by the primitive tools of their time, today's lens designers have more freedom to make lenses that perform extremely well across the entire focus range.

[Na Horuk]

I think at this point there is nothing more to say. OP wants to believe their story and refuses to accept that maybe the many people, who wrote thoughtful replies and showed many examples, might be on to something. I guess OP will have to buy two 100mm and two 50mm lenses, one macro and one non-macro. No problem! Enjoy your lenses everybody I will continue using my macro for all sorts of non-macro photos

[Fluegel]

What you can do with a subject is limited by the possibilities the equipment offers.

Attached a largely rescaled image from a new powerplant.
These kind of images are only possible with lenses that offer minimal distortion and high resolution.

With portraits high resolution and strong contrast is not wanted.
The use of lenses with these kind of properties will give you trouble with any female over the age of 12 like a good photographer friend used to say. Horses for courses.

Paul

---------- Post added 12-12-17 at 06:50 AM ----------

Unlike Carl Zeiss' engineers in the 1960s who were forced to compromise on either macro or infinity by the primitive tools of their time, today's lens designers have more freedom to make lenses that perform extremely well across the entire focus range.

Your lack of historical knowledge of lens design is an insult to highly regarded designers in the industry.
Ludwig Bertele designed the first Biogon lens in the thirties. With modest means like a slide rule he calculated this lens.
The design was never upgraded untill the properties of new optical glass made a recalculation necessary at the end of the nineties.
Due to environmental legislation optical glass no longer contained substances that were considered unwanted from an environmental point of view.

Carl Zeiss asked Victor Hasselblad to design a MF camera that made the use of the Biogon lens possible.
In 1954 Hasselblad introduced the first Supreme Wide Angle camera at the Photokina in Cologne.
That camera later became the well known SWC at the end of the fifties.

The Biogon lens was recalculated in 2000 with the use of highly sophisticated computer software.
The result closely aproached the original design made over sixty years earlier by Ludwig Bertele.
It did not improve the qualities of the original design, the new 905SWC closely approached the original Supreme Wide Angle camera.

The attached image was made with a 903SWC and Hasselblads 50 Mp digital back.


Paul

[Na Horuk]

The attached image was made with a 903SWC and Hasselblads 50 Mp digital back.

But why does it look so soft? Maybe you should have used a macro lens. Pentax K-01 with DA 35mm f2.8 macro would give sharper, better photo.

[Fluegel]

Are you kidding me?

Judging a severely reduced digitally registered image, if I remember correctly the file was 80 Mb, on a screen with limited resolution and contrast.

[cmohr]

Yeah... No. You have done nothing here but troll. 19 posts on the forum, most here trolling and arguing stupid logic and offing proof that has huge softness and distortion.

Why are you here on Pentaxforums???

[pakinjapan]

This topic is heating up
It would be nice to see more test image here.

On the link provided by Fluegel , I understand that it is "Carl Zeiss" report which has been tested using their lenses. It is not a comparison report between their lenses and Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc lenses. To compare lense from difference company, difference design concept and design technic, We might want to see test from both manufacturers using the same tools and environments, same data collection and technic, etc. othe wise we can only guess this and that.
And another point. I don't even know where to look! I don't want to pretend that I understand all the enginer language, chart test and report paper. lol
But I like to see real-world comparison test shots. I never buy a lens just because Pentax said it perform well on a test chart.

I am assuming Fluegel has the Carl Zeiss lens he mentioned.
Do you have a Pentax macro at a similar or same focal length?
Could you do a few test shots of the same scene, macro & landscape and show us how good / bad the lenses can do?
If you don't have a Pentax Macro, [you should get the 100wr, you will LOVE it... except when it misses focus!] nevermind, just do the Carl Zeiss at infinity and macro distance. [To me it hard to believe Carl Zeiss macro can't do good infinity distance shot at usual landscape f-stop like f8-11 or 16.]
Fluegel, no pressure here. If you don't feel like doing it, don't do it.

I would do the test myself, If I have a 50 or 100 Carl Zeiss lens. Too bad I don't have one.
However, I did a comparison shooting between Pentax M50 f1.7 and FA50 macro. [Before I sold the M. I need to ram up every Yen I can for the upcomming 11-18!]
what I learn is, at f 5.6 - 8, the older M50 f1.7 seems to produce as sharp image as one of the sharpest 50mm Pentax has ever made FA50 macro. And usually I do landscape/cityscape at around f8 - 16. So by the real world shooting, Pentax Macro can do a pretty good job for me. [I wouldn't be surprised if a CarlZeiss macro can do good landscape at f8-11 and any Pentax 50 or 100 macro can do true macro.]

[clackers]

I do not have to proof anything.

That's incorrect, Paul, the onus is on you ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

[clackers]

I do not have to proof anything.

For all those who still doubt my first post please look at the lens data from Carl Zeiss, in particular the MTF data.

A comparison between the older true macro lens S-Planar and the later Makro-Planar.
The Makro Planar was less of a macro lens than the S-PLanar and can be used at infinity where the S-Planar is useless at infinity.

Resolution is less good and distortion has increased for the later Makro Planar lens in macro range.

link: Carl Zeiss 120 mm S-Planar MTF - Buscar con Google

Too much work to comment all posts who contest my claim.
I will leave it at one who was particularly interesting:
This gentleman wrote" new macro lens designs have floating elements".
Another misconception I am afraid.
Floating elements were first used to improve close range IQ of wide angle lenses.
It has nothing to do with macro lens design.

First of all, it's considered bad form not to provide a quote and the exact link to the quote and its context.

You simply linked to a Google search.

This is not allowed in the law or parliamentary proceedings because it challenges the other party to possibly scour through many volumes to find a particular passage. Its purpose would be to deter someone from being fact-checked or contradicted.

Secondly, why are you referring only to an ancient Zeiss design?

Floating elements have radically changed macro designs, Nikon, not Zeiss or Hasselblad, were the pioneers of this during 1967. My reference is here:

Popular Photography - Google Books

[clackers]

Another misconception I am afraid.

And here is data from Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals showing there is very little difference in MTF between infinity and close up in a modern macro lens (including Zeiss).

An advantage they have over something like a Zeiss Distagon is that they have flat fields of curvature, too.

Lens Rentals | Blog

[Pål Jensen]

The Pentax FA* 200/4 ED IF Macro is totally terrific at any focusing distance and is a fantastic landscape lens as well....

[Na Horuk]

Are you kidding me?

Downsizing would only improve sharpness, DoF, detail. And it removes noise. Still, that photo is crooked, overexposed, and unsharp. Look how soft all edges are. I can't see any texture on any of the rails or tubes. I could get that kind of photo with the DA L 18-55mm kit lens and it only costs $80. What good is having 80MP, if the lens can't provide the resolution? Will you print a 7 foot poster of that photo? If the image will only be viewed in reduced image format, you might as well save money and use a K-S1 with 18-55mm. And its much more light to carry, so you would more likely get the horizon correct and have less shake blur

[BarryE]

... Still, that photo is crooked, overexposed, and unsharp. Look how soft all edges are. I can't see any texture on any of the rails or tubes. I could get that kind of photo with the DA L 18-55mm kit lens and it only costs $80 .... And its much more light to carry, so you would more likely get the horizon correct and have less shake blur

That was along the lines of what I thought when I saw that snap shot, but I couldn't be bothered to say - seems I have now.

I'm sure the OP could supply some better shots to make his point more clearly, it would be helpful, because at the moment it's drifting about from it's initial question, 'macro lenses for landscapes?'

So bring it back to the start. OP what Pentax macro lenses have you experienced this problem with? (It is only Pentax lenses in this section of the forum, not other brands). Then can you supply the images for us to look at. Most of us are less bothered by charts and quoting physical effects, we prefer to see examples. (Not that I'm bothered with physics conversations and optics, as my first degree was physics). Many thanks.