Macro lenses for landscape?

**clackers** · 12-10-2017, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Fluegel

It surprises me that even experienced photographers use macro lenses for landscape and other shots that focus at greater distances.

Non macro lens designs give best IQ at longer distances and infinity.
Macro lense differ. They not only allow focussing at close range, they hive best IQ at close range.
For objects at distances from about 2 m and more non macro lense give better IQ.

I'd like to see your proof of this, Paul...

**Kerrowdown** · 12-10-2017, 04:51 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Fluegel

Macro lenses for landscape?

Strangely enough I did today, my “Femme Fatale” (Pentax-A 50mm F2.8 Macro).

pakinjapan · 12-10-2017, 04:56 PM - **5 Likes**

I used to hear a lot [some year ago] about Macro lens doesn't perform well with objects at longer distances to infinity until I try it with my new 100wr and this is one of the first photo I test back then. The sun was just a bit to the left out of the frame. It was with a K-5 and note that Instagram compress my image. The raw file shows a better detail.

here is another one with 100 WR daytime - K3 .

I was so impressed. So when I look for a 50mm for landscape photo. I deliberately go for Pentax macro lens and I got a FA50 f2.8 macro which didn't disappoint me.
FA50 macro below with K3:

I don't know about lens from difference brand, or what lense people use when they come into a conclusion like macro lens is not good for infinity. But two of my Pentax macro can be pointed to the sun, focus at infinity and it will produce beautiful rendering image and a very nice starbursts as a bonus. If I want a 35 mm for landscape, I would again go for DA35 Limited macro, no question about it.

jddwoods · 12-10-2017, 05:07 PM

My DA 35 Limited and DFA 100 WR fill two roles for me. Both are for Macro and the DFA 35 doubles as a normal prime and the DFA 100 WR as a compact medium telephoto. They are just as good on my K-5 and K-3 bodies as any prime at their focal lengths. Also the focus range in the non-macro zone is much smaller than the macro zone meaning when used out of the macro range, autofocus is quite fast.

Jonathan Mac · 12-10-2017, 11:26 PM

It may be the case that in the past macro lenses were relatively poor at infinity and this explained why there used to be two versions of 100mm lenses - a macro and a non-macro - but even then I think it's more likely a case of "you pay either for macro or for an extra stop of light, to get f/2.8 rather than f/4". In more recent times companies tend to have just one 100mm prime lens, a macro, perhaps with limiter switch, and I'm sure they perform very well whether they're used for macro or not.

Perhaps this will turn into the "landscape shot with a macro lens" club

pentaxfall · 12-11-2017, 12:32 AM

Macros are good for Panoramas because they are supposed to be sharp at the edges also. For many years I had just two lens, both were macros FA 50mm and FA 100mm, and I used it for everything.

**pentaxus** · 12-11-2017, 12:34 AM

It is not beating physics. Almost all macro lenses made in the last 30 years have floating elements. That means that the lens element spacing changes to optimize quality for the distance the lens is focused at. Because of that the lenses are great at any distance including infinity.

Fluegel · 12-11-2017, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by clackers

I'd like to see your proof of this, Paul...

That is easy.

Look at MTF data published by Carl Zeiss.

**clackers** · 12-11-2017, 12:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Fluegel

That is easy.

Look at MTF data published by Carl Zeiss.

*You* have to prove it.

No one is required to disprove your claim.

Please provide the quote proving your point, and its reference so we can put it correctly into context ... a hyperlink will do!

**sibyrnes** · 12-11-2017, 02:40 PM - **2 Likes**

I think the DFA 50 Macro does a pretty good job with landscapes.

Fluegel · 12-12-2017, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by clackers

*You* have to prove it.

No one is required to disprove your claim.

Please provide the quote proving your point, and its reference so we can put it correctly into context ... a hyperlink will do!

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: https://tinyurl.com/ybqbb3w9

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.

I thank all of you for some great images posted in this thread.

An extreme sample of images at infinity are well known pictures of the earth made by astronauts on the moon.
They used a Carl Zeiss 100 mm Planar lens from the MK series.
MK stands for Mess Kamera, cameras and lenses used to perform measurments.
I happen to have a 100 mm MK lens which is an improved version of the already excellent 100 mm Planar.

Only two lens designs from CZ made for Hasselblad were used in space.
The other one is a rare 60 mm Biogon lens.

I wish all of you much pleasure with Pentax gear, keep up the good work.

Paul

ppohja · 12-12-2017, 01:43 AM

I remember when selling my M50/2.8 due to getting the A2.8 I ran through a number of tests with a number of lenses around the 50mm range.

I remember being disappointed looking at the D-FA 50 results at infinity compared to some others. Then thought, 'oh, this is a macro, never mind about the infinity'. Let's see if I can dig down the results, or redo something similar. Unfortunately currently I've got the same snowscape problem as the gentleman above.

One thing however is sure. The D-FA 50 is way better for about any of the use cases than my DA*55.

Fluegel · 12-12-2017, 03:27 AM

Macro lenses used for longer distance and infinity shots can give good results.
It depends on how much the lens designer and manufacturer have been prepared to compromise on macro performance.
I was surprised Carl Zeiss went this route with the 120/4 Makro Planar.

I assume Pentax made the same choice with their macro lenses.

MTF data for infinity of 120 S-Planar, 120 CFi and 100 mm Planar :

120 S-Planar http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/C120.pdf

120 Makro-Planar http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFi120.pdf

100 Planar http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF100.pdf

Paul

robjmitchell · 12-12-2017, 04:01 AM

Subject matter is far more import than the technical perfection of the equipment.

**BarryE** · 12-12-2017, 05:37 AM

From a practical point, what is infinity ? In reality, it's only astro work that will come close to this focus problem, being claimed for macros. Far distant shots are not at infinity, (especially for me in the more confined UK landscapes) they are rarely more than a few km away. There is a difference between infinity and the the much more common far distant shot. Are we in danger of confusing the two? For me the DFA50mm macro is brilliant at far distant shots - I have no idea if it could handle Alpha Centauri. Maybe the Zeiss tests being referred to is being tested using true infinity, ie parallel light, never found on objects on our planet.

12-10-2017, 04:56 PM - 5 Likes	#33
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	I used to hear a lot [some year ago] about Macro lens doesn't perform well with objects at longer distances to infinity until I try it with my new 100wr and this is one of the first photo I test back then. The sun was just a bit to the left out of the frame. It was with a K-5 and note that Instagram compress my image. The raw file shows a better detail. here is another one with 100 WR daytime - K3 . I was so impressed. So when I look for a 50mm for landscape photo. I deliberately go for Pentax macro lens and I got a FA50 f2.8 macro which didn't disappoint me. FA50 macro below with K3: I don't know about lens from difference brand, or what lense people use when they come into a conclusion like macro lens is not good for infinity. But two of my Pentax macro can be pointed to the sun, focus at infinity and it will produce beautiful rendering image and a very nice starbursts as a bonus. If I want a 35 mm for landscape, I would again go for DA35 Limited macro, no question about it. Last edited by pakinjapan; 12-10-2017 at 10:03 PM.

12-11-2017, 12:45 AM - 1 Like	#39
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Fluegel That is easy. Look at MTF data published by Carl Zeiss. You have to prove it. No one is required to disprove your claim. Please provide the quote proving your point, and its reference so we can put it correctly into context ... a hyperlink will do! Last edited by clackers; 12-11-2017 at 03:46 AM.

12-12-2017, 03:27 AM	#43
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	Macro lenses used for longer distance and infinity shots can give good results. It depends on how much the lens designer and manufacturer have been prepared to compromise on macro performance. I was surprised Carl Zeiss went this route with the 120/4 Makro Planar. I assume Pentax made the same choice with their macro lenses. MTF data for infinity of 120 S-Planar, 120 CFi and 100 mm Planar : 120 S-Planar http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/C120.pdf 120 Makro-Planar http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFi120.pdf 100 Planar http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF100.pdf Paul Last edited by Fluegel; 12-12-2017 at 03:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Picking out FF K mount landscape lenses	motorhead9999	Pentax Full Frame	42	11-09-2017 06:14 AM
Recommend a lens for landscape/urban landscape photography	a96agli	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-22-2015 10:26 AM
what lenses for macro and landscape	udayuday	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-02-2013 05:03 AM
P52-3-46 - Landscape - Portrait Landscape	jmschrei	Weekly Photo Challenges	11	06-13-2011 12:32 AM
Landscape photography.... Best lenses?	FunkyMonk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	04-27-2011 05:40 PM

12-10-2017, 04:44 PM	#31
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Fluegel It surprises me that even experienced photographers use macro lenses for landscape and other shots that focus at greater distances. Non macro lens designs give best IQ at longer distances and infinity. Macro lense differ. They not only allow focussing at close range, they hive best IQ at close range. For objects at distances from about 2 m and more non macro lense give better IQ. I'd like to see your proof of this, Paul...

12-10-2017, 04:51 PM - 1 Like	#32
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Originally posted by Fluegel Macro lenses for landscape? Strangely enough I did today, my “Femme Fatale” (Pentax-A 50mm F2.8 Macro).

12-10-2017, 05:07 PM	#34
jddwoods Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Newark, Delaware Posts: 1,035	My DA 35 Limited and DFA 100 WR fill two roles for me. Both are for Macro and the DFA 35 doubles as a normal prime and the DFA 100 WR as a compact medium telephoto. They are just as good on my K-5 and K-3 bodies as any prime at their focal lengths. Also the focus range in the non-macro zone is much smaller than the macro zone meaning when used out of the macro range, autofocus is quite fast.

12-10-2017, 11:26 PM	#35
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	It may be the case that in the past macro lenses were relatively poor at infinity and this explained why there used to be two versions of 100mm lenses - a macro and a non-macro - but even then I think it's more likely a case of "you pay either for macro or for an extra stop of light, to get f/2.8 rather than f/4". In more recent times companies tend to have just one 100mm prime lens, a macro, perhaps with limiter switch, and I'm sure they perform very well whether they're used for macro or not. Perhaps this will turn into the "landscape shot with a macro lens" club

12-11-2017, 12:32 AM	#36
pentaxfall Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Bangalore, India Posts: 581	Macros are good for Panoramas because they are supposed to be sharp at the edges also. For many years I had just two lens, both were macros FA 50mm and FA 100mm, and I used it for everything.

12-11-2017, 12:34 AM	#37
pentaxus Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central Coast, CA Posts: 1,313	It is not beating physics. Almost all macro lenses made in the last 30 years have floating elements. That means that the lens element spacing changes to optimize quality for the distance the lens is focused at. Because of that the lenses are great at any distance including infinity.

12-11-2017, 12:40 AM	#38
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers I'd like to see your proof of this, Paul... That is easy. Look at MTF data published by Carl Zeiss.

12-12-2017, 01:05 AM	#41
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers You have to prove it. No one is required to disprove your claim. Please provide the quote proving your point, and its reference so we can put it correctly into context ... a hyperlink will do! 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: https://tinyurl.com/ybqbb3w9 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. I thank all of you for some great images posted in this thread. An extreme sample of images at infinity are well known pictures of the earth made by astronauts on the moon. They used a Carl Zeiss 100 mm Planar lens from the MK series. MK stands for Mess Kamera, cameras and lenses used to perform measurments. I happen to have a 100 mm MK lens which is an improved version of the already excellent 100 mm Planar. Only two lens designs from CZ made for Hasselblad were used in space. The other one is a rare 60 mm Biogon lens. I wish all of you much pleasure with Pentax gear, keep up the good work. Paul

12-12-2017, 01:43 AM	#42
ppohja Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 194	I remember when selling my M50/2.8 due to getting the A2.8 I ran through a number of tests with a number of lenses around the 50mm range. I remember being disappointed looking at the D-FA 50 results at infinity compared to some others. Then thought, 'oh, this is a macro, never mind about the infinity'. Let's see if I can dig down the results, or redo something similar. Unfortunately currently I've got the same snowscape problem as the gentleman above. One thing however is sure. The D-FA 50 is way better for about any of the use cases than my DA*55.

12-12-2017, 04:01 AM	#44
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Subject matter is far more import than the technical perfection of the equipment.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2017, 05:37 AM	#45
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	From a practical point, what is infinity ? In reality, it's only astro work that will come close to this focus problem, being claimed for macros. Far distant shots are not at infinity, (especially for me in the more confined UK landscapes) they are rarely more than a few km away. There is a difference between infinity and the the much more common far distant shot. Are we in danger of confusing the two? For me the DFA50mm macro is brilliant at far distant shots - I have no idea if it could handle Alpha Centauri. Maybe the Zeiss tests being referred to is being tested using true infinity, ie parallel light, never found on objects on our planet.