Sony rumors new 70 - 200

4 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

If you want longer focal distance, why not use, say, Sigma 180mm via Metabones?

Hi Barmaglot,

I was initially using the Canon 100mm IS EF macro with Metabones, but AF is inferior compared to the native 90mm lens. I do not expect other EF macros to work better, but maybe someone can report from own experience..,.

Wolfgang

I've got the A7RV housing but I've been hesitating on a macro solution beyond the use of diopters on the 28-60. The FE 50 has to be one of the worst lenses I've ever used so I'm not going near that one again. I used to have the 90, but at the time the focus was terribly slow and so I got rid of it, but I've heard it's much better on the newer bodies. It's too bad the 70-200/4 II is out of the question. As stated above the magnification is more or less static throughout the zoom range which would have been nice.

The comments above about using the Nikon 60 piqued my interest as that would seemingly open up the possibility of CFWA using a Krakel KRL-09 or MWL-1

I'd like to see Sony update their 90 and also release a 60. I'm guessing the long rumored 100/1.4 will not be 1:1 but more likely a portrait lens with 0.5x or less

1 hour ago, BobbyV said:

I've got the A7RV housing but I've been hesitating on a macro solution beyond the use of diopters on the 28-60. The FE 50 has to be one of the worst lenses I've ever used so I'm not going near that one again. I used to have the 90, but at the time the focus was terribly slow and so I got rid of it, but I've heard it's much better on the newer bodies. It's too bad the 70-200/4 II is out of the question. I've read that the magnification is more or less static throughout the zoom range which would have been nice.

The comments above about using the Nikon 60 piqued my interest as that would seemingly open up the possibility of CFWA using a Krakel KRL-09 or MWL-1

I'd like to see Sony update their 90 and also release a 60. I'm guessing the long rumored 100/1.4 will not be 1:1 but more likely a portrait lens with 0.5x or less

 

The Sony FE bioptop is unfortunately not famous for a rich choice of good UW lenses - but this complaint comes from a very spoiled UW-photographer...

I can report, however, that the Sony 90mm macro is working very well on A7R5. Certainly a good lens for UW macro. AF works very good, even with SMC-1 attached (the magnification, relative to the frame (not optical magnification), when SMC-1 attached is similar to 1:1 with MFT lenses). AF works comparably well as the EM1II with Zuiko 60mm or 90mm without CMC-1 or other diopter attached (that is the setup I can compare to from my own experience) - plus animal eye detection that often works and is clearly desirable for macro. I did not use so far 28-60 with diopter, but I am sure that the extra working distance with the 90mm is worth going for it...

Wolfgang

P.S.: what regards a shorter focal length macro lens for e.g. fish portrait, I used to take the 12-40mm Zuiko on EM1II with Zen DP-170 and this had superb IQ. The avantage over prime e.g. 30mm (MFT) in planport is not only the dome, but also the fact that one can zoom out, in case the animals allow it - both contribute to the superb IQ. I hope the Sony 20-70 f4 with DP170 will perform equally well with A7R5, but I used it so far only on 2 dives and have to gain more experience before I can say for sure...

Concerning CFWA there is nothing better as adapted Tokina 10-17mm with DP100 on MFT or APS-C sensor or Canon 8-15 with Nauticam 140 on FF (unless you have this complicated and extremely escalating EMWL system, that seems to be superior)...

5 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

The Sony FE bioptop is unfortunately not famous for a rich choice of good UW lenses - but this complaint comes from a very spoiled UW-photographer...

I can report, however, that the Sony 90mm macro is working very well on A7R5. Certainly a good lens for UW macro. AF works very good, even with SMC-1 attached (the magnification, relative to the frame (not optical magnification), when SMC-1 attached is similar to 1:1 with MFT lenses). AF works comparably well as the EM1II with Zuiko 60mm or 90mm without CMC-1 or other diopter attached (that is the setup I can compare to from my own experience). I did not use so far 28-60 with diopter, but I am sure that the extra working distance with the 90mm is worth going for it...

 

Wolfgang

That's good to hear about the 90 FE working well on the A7RV. I am definitely leaning that direction, I've found the CMC+28-60 a useful "back pocket" tool, but it has a very limited, unforgiving focal envelope that makes it almost not worth the bother for certain types of subjects or conditions. Of course my lack of skill with it is a factor. In hindsight I wish I had just invested in the 90mm port versus the CMC-2 etc.

At one point I was even toying with the idea of a secondary m43 macro rig, but I found it rather disappointing that working distance is comparatively small on the new OM 90 (8.3cm at 1:1). The 80 macro Fuji is another option, which in my experience is a phenomenal lens, but working distance at 1:1 from front element again is only 9.8cm 

The Sony 90 has 15cm working distance at 1:1.  The OM 90's working distance might be only 8.3cm at 1:1, but to compare to the Sony you need to know its working distance at 1:2, because of the 2x crop.  For photographing the same subject, I'd guess that the OM 90 should probably have a slight advantage.  

On 7/19/2023 at 1:41 PM, tie said:

The Sony 90 has 15cm working distance at 1:1.  The OM 90's working distance might be only 8.3cm at 1:1, but to compare to the Sony you need to know its working distance at 1:2, because of the 2x crop.  For photographing the same subject, I'd guess that the OM 90 should probably have a slight advantage.  

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the main advantage with the OM is closer focusing? I.e. if you were to take images with both setups at the same 15 cm distance, crop the Sony image to the same frame, and compare vis-a-vis it would achieve almost the same result (but as you say, slight edge to the Olympus) because the pixel pitch of the sensors is similar

I can't remember if Nauticam makes a solution to use TCs with the Olympus or Fuji, but I'm guessing that would give those more of an edge on working distance

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread with this discussion

10 hours ago, BobbyV said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the main advantage with the OM is closer focusing? I.e. if you were to take images with both setups at the same 15 cm distance, crop the Sony image to the same frame, and compare vis-a-vis it would achieve almost the same result (but as you say, slight edge to the Olympus) because the pixel pitch of the sensors is similar

I can't remember if Nauticam makes a solution to use TCs with the Olympus or Fuji, but I'm guessing that would give those more of an edge on working distance

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread with this discussion

The main advantage is that at 1:1 and object half the size of what you can fit in the Sony frame will fill the Olympus frame.

Looking at my OM 90mm macro lens now I see that at 0.5x the working distance is about 165mm - the upside of this is that for small objects you will have more working distance and of course it will focus down to 2.0x on the sensor without accessories.

8 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The main advantage is that at 1:1 and object half the size of what you can fit in the Sony frame will fill the Olympus frame.

The main disadvantage is that with MFT your abitlity for life-size imaging is limited to subjects half the size what full frame can still capture at 1:1. Win for FF.

For the same field-of-view at the same distance, MFT can use a twice shorter focal length. Less cost, less weight, less size. Win MFT (if you ignore the in principle higher image quality of FF which for me is less critical underwater).
However, for macro work a shorter focal length means less working distance which is a disadvantage for shy critters but can be an advantage otherwise. Especially in low-viz conditions.

But the OM 90mm macro is a pretty unique tool for those who want high-resolution/high-magnification in combination with autofocus. Fortunately for a fish guy like me 1:1 is almost always enough on MFT as there are few fish smaller than that sensor.

3 hours ago, Glasseye Snapper said:

The main disadvantage is that with MFT your abitlity for life-size imaging is limited to subjects half the size what full frame can still capture at 1:1. Win for FF.

 

I would argue that there is nothing magical about life size.  You could turn this on it's head in so far as you can capture the same subject at half life size and get the benefits accruing from that of greater depth of field and arguably higher resolution due to smaller effective aperture and less diffraction or you could open up the aperture if desired.

On 7/23/2023 at 10:52 PM, ChrisRoss said:

I would argue that there is nothing magical about life size.  You could turn this on it's head in so far as you can capture the same subject at half life size and get the benefits accruing from that of greater depth of field and arguably higher resolution due to smaller effective aperture and less diffraction or you could open up the aperture if desired.

Sensor-size 'equivalence' behavior always gives me brain spasms and in practise I don't think sensor size matters much (I am a MFT shooter myself). My thinking is that a larger sensor can indeed more accurately record the optical image created by the lens, but my 'bad images' are always due to failing to create a good optical image in the first place (poor focus, exposure, subject distance, composition, ...). Better viewfinder, autofocus, metering and more time underwater to hone my skills are more important than sensor size.

Macro photography may be one area were a larger sensor does help, at least on paper. In my thinking, macro photography is about resolution with magnification playing a secondary role needed to match optical resolution to sensor resolution. For instance, if your optical image has greater resolution than what can be captured by the sensor you can either match the sensor to the optical image (use smaller pixels) or match the optical image to the sensor (use higher magnification). As a concrete example, the pixel size of the 40 Mpixel APS-C sensor in the Fujifilm X-T5 is very similar to a 20 Mpixel MFT sensor (it is equivalent to a 22.5 Mpixel MFT to be precise). If the optical resolution is higher than the sensor resolution when the subject just fits the MFT frame, an MFT shooter can't magnify more because you clip your subject. In contrast, the X-T5 can magnify an additional 1.33x and still fit the subject on the frame. Pixels on a Sony A7R IV or V are only slightly larger than 20Mpix MFT but you can magnify an additional two times. The simpler way to think about it is probably that the same field of view is sampled by more pixels, which helps if there is enough optical resolution.

I still consider this a theoretical benefit and at least for my fish portraits not something that concerns me. In practice, limited DOF often makes us use aperture settings where the optical resolution no longer exceeds sensor resolution. But in macro photography discussions I often have the feeling that people are chasing magnification without paying enough attention to resolution.

FWIW, I've preordered the 70-200/4 II for topside work to replace my 70-200/4 FE.

I wasn't even thinking about underwater use, but I am intrigued by the possibility of mounting it with a teleconverter, extensions and a flat port, if that's even possible. I didn't order it thinking it would work UW, but I'm intrigued by the possibility. The 70-200/4 is a much more useful optic for me and it's the type of lens that goes with me everywhere anyway.  I wouldn't really know where to start trying to figure out a port solution, but I'm open to any suggestions if anyone has them. 

Edit: I'd only be planning to use it fixed at 70mm