For most macro uses, having a 100mm lens is nicer than 50mm because it gives you a greater working distance, but I agree that 100mm feels a bit long on APS-C for other purposes. Much like the 100mm macros, it's an excellent lens all around, but my Macro Rokkor-X QF 50mm f/3.5 is actually slightly better in every way. Build and IQ are both solid "A" for it, but it has the (unfortunately common with Canons) propensity to flare. But again, I appreciate seeing some images from the 100ĭon't have the FDn 50mm macro, but I do have the FL 50mm f/3.5 macro. I'm starting to lean toward the Canon 50mm macro or the Vivitar 55mm. Thanks for the post and images! I am re-thinking which lens I want now, since the 100mm will be equivalent to 150mm on my camera, and I'm not sure if that's the fl I would like. If the price is right (I paid $40 and $100 or so sounds fair), I can recommend the FDn 100mm f/4 macro fairly strongly. In sum, overall I rate this much better than my Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 macro, better than my Pentax SMC Takumar 100mm f/4 (especially at non-macro distances), and only slightly behind my Minolta MD Macro Rokkor-X 100mm f/4. so bokeh look good for slighly OOF and very OFF stuff, but the ring shows up somewhere in between making the bokeh a little busy - as in the tree in the last shot. The OOF PSF has a bright ring, but it doesn't have sharp edges. Here are a few quick OOC JPEGs taken with it wide open on an A6000:Īs you can see from these (boring!) shots, it's sharp and contrasty and stays that way both at macro and normal focus distances.
Overall, the build quality is "B," not "A" (my Minolta 100mm build quality is better than "A"). So, the build quality is typical FDn, but with higher probability of damaging the FDn stamped mounting plate than most FDn lenses. I was even able to straighten the bent part and put it in a less massive lens where it has held up fine. Mine was badly deformed as it came to me via eBay, but it was easy to swap the thin metal stamping with that of another lens, and it's fine now. However, it's a bit heavy and long, which makes the flimsy FDn stamped-metal mount susceptible to deforming - one good bump can bend the mount plate, and bumping a macro lens into something is fairly common. Although my Minolta MD Macro Rokkor-X 100mm f/4 does slightly better on both APS-C and FF, there are no significant IQ complaints at all on APS-C, focal reducer, or FF. Any sample pics taken with it would be highly appreciated. I am thinking of using it on my Fuji X-T10. Just wondering if anyone has a copy of this lens and any opinion on its IQ and ease of use. The best that can be said is that one of these lenses in good condition is that it is a quite good lens. Therefore unlike brand new lenses - the results obtained by one lens are not necessarily the same as another one that might have problems. If I had not sourced the problem by disassembling the lens then I would have forever thought that lens "A" was not particularly good but I bought another (lens "B") that worked fine. I know enough to separate good lenses from bad ones mentally (and remember this) - my caution is that even the very best looking/performing lens can have internal problems that can turn it into a fail. My photographic skills are borderline and I don't really need to wow my audience with them in order to "sell" a lens. When I do I am a hopeless recorder of detail and soon cannot remember which lens took which images. The moral of the story is that I have too many lenses and not enough time to take photographs with them.
CANON MACRO 100MM TEST CRACK
I might be good enough now to have another crack at it. It is in my "rogues" box waiting on my repair skills to improve. I also have another "50"that looked immaculate but turned out to have some form of crystals between an inner glued element that I could not part. I have the "50" and "100" macro - both are really good lenses for me.
0 kommentar(er)
