Finding the macro limits of the 200-600 and a9

[spudhead]

I dont think their is a debate over Macro versus close up photography and many photography competitions recognise the difference based upon magnification level.

For sure there are some excellent images in this thread, as close up images, and as has been pointed out the crops are very heavy and it seems some of the better images were tripod based also.

Current camera technology/resolution, post processing developments and lens quality provides for such excellent cropped images but macro is another world and based upon true macro subject magnifications of 1:1 and greater, as we all know. the emphasis is different.

Again as we all know some macro lenses can be used to infinity focus and again will yield excellent images at much lower magnification than 1;1.

The attached is a crop from a x2 100 stack tiff image converted to JPG at 3/2 format and 10" image at 300 DPI resolution and whilst i do not suggest this is in any way a good image or comparable to the quality of the images by kev and spud, as its in need of substantial improvement, but as an initial foray into the capability of my louwa x2 85mm lens it illustrates the difference of higher magnification/detailed images versus close up fully sharp/resolved but lower detail/size images.

Absolutely, seeing the quality of the images by Kev, Spud et al I am sure many photography enthusiasts would prefer to see fully sharp close up images over the in your face highly magnified/detailed macro images , partially sharp or fully stacked, at 1:1 magnification and above.

Ultimately its a question of taste and additional effort in producing acceptable true macro images at high magnification and fine detail over an alternate lower level of magnification and detail but nevertheless very pleasing and high quality images in their own right.

View attachment 25210

Thanks for adding to the thread, none of my images were tripod based!!!! all freehand read the thread, it is not a debate on macro verses closeup just an exercise in finding the limits of one lens only the 200-600, do you imagine for one moment I have never shot macro or don't know the difference!! if you have images from the 200-600 please add them

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

First of all and as I understand it this forum is a democracy not an autocracy so pls save me the grief and get down from your high horse.

N0-one in fact questioned your images and to the contrary I recognized all the images in the thread as of high quality. On the matter of reading posts I suggest YOU READ MY POST on the matter of use of tripods…..your name was never mentioned.

I regularly post images with my 400mm f2.8 and 200mm-600mm but have no desire to follow your overbearing advice…..I decide when, where and how to post my images.

On what you have or haven’t shot I have no clue and don’t wish to know , but I do know such ridiculous outbursts say more about you and your character than your shots ever will…….

 

[spudhead]

First of all and as I understand it this forum is a democracy not an autocracy so pls save me the grief and get down from your high horse.

N0-one in fact questioned your images and to the contrary I recognized all the images in the thread as of high quality. On the matter of reading posts I suggest YOU READ MY POST on the matter of use of tripods…..your name was never mentioned.

I regularly post images with my 400mm f2.8 and 200mm-600mm but have no desire to follow your overbearing advice…..I decide when, where and how to post my images.

On what you have or haven’t shot I have no clue and don’t wish to know , but I do know such ridiculous outbursts say more about you and your character than your shots ever will…….

I do not recall offering advise to you at any point and would never do so because of course we all know you have a great depth of knowledge which is beyond question and the thread simply was to engage members on the 200-600, that is it, obviously you are free to start a thread on close up versa macro

 

[Brownie]

First of all and as I understand it this forum is a democracy not an autocracy so pls save me the grief and get down from your high horse.

N0-one in fact questioned your images and to the contrary I recognized all the images in the thread as of high quality. On the matter of reading posts I suggest YOU READ MY POST on the matter of use of tripods…..your name was never mentioned.

I regularly post images with my 400mm f2.8 and 200mm-600mm but have no desire to follow your overbearing advice…..I decide when, where and how to post my images.

On what you have or haven’t shot I have no clue and don’t wish to know , but I do know such ridiculous outbursts say more about you and your character than your shots ever will…….

I think everyone knew what @spudhead meant by the thread title, and we certainly know what constitutes macro. We are also familiar with focus stacking. BTW, no one in the thread has stated they used a tripod, quite the contrary.

The thread is about the ability/limitations of the 200-600 as a closeup or pseudo-macro lens. You have a 200-600, correct? Why not just join in the fun and show us your own shots, and tell us what you've found as the lens's near focus limitations? The more the merrier.

One more note, this forum is really not a democracy, it is a privately owned website with a single owner and administrator who sets the rules. Think of it more as a benevolent dictatorship.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I was trying to draw the distinction between true macro versus close up photography in a discussion around close up limits of the 200-600mm lens, in making what i thought was a helpful contribution to the discussion.

Even in your post you refer to pseudo-macro which in a purely accurate sense does not exist, if the image is not 1:1 magnification or higher it is not Macro in a photography sense- maybe i am too much of a purist but at no time was I out to discredit anyone's knowledge or shooting methods...that was all, case closed from my end.

 

[Brownie]

Even in your post you refer to pseudo-macro which in a purely accurate sense does not exist,

I disagree.

Let's think about this. Every person who's been doing this for even a modicum of time has seen those lenses that proclaim 'Macro', but have a magnification of 1:2, 1:2.5, 1:3, etc. This was pretty popular back in the day, I still have several with magnifications of 0.8, 0.9, etc.. Those are not macro, they are closeup lenses. Some of my old A-Mount Minolta glass even have 'macro' switches. Pretty cool for a lens that doesn't even have macro capabilities. Manufacturer's use the term very loosely as a sales gimmick.

Those are what I refer to as pseudo-macro, and it's appropriate. Maybe it's not an accepted industry term, that being the case that I have coined a phrase and I expect full accolades when someone uses it!

 

[mapleleaf56]

I’ve only been a member for a short while but already I’ve noticed certain members who tend to take over a thread …
I was really enjoying this thread, enjoying at first using the 200-600 and then being inspired to try different lenses and see how close you could get..
But unfortunately as has happened before in a thread of my own it has been ruined by a particular member and his overbearing comments.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

When you participate in a democracy free opinion/speech is the norm, good bad or indifferent, people can either ignore or engage......

 

[Brownie]

When you participate in a democracy free opinion/speech is the norm, good bad or indifferent, people can either ignore or engage......

While that is an anticipated response, it is nonetheless unfortunate. I choose to ignore going forward.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

While that is an anticipated response, it is nonetheless unfortunate. I choose to ignore going forward.

That is fine, i find that very fortunate and will not lose any sleep over your non communication. Do however stick to your choice as you have not done so in the past, as has been raised previously, and which you are well aware of.

 

[Jeff A]

So, I spent some time yesterday in changeable light trying to find the limits of the 200-600 lens used as a macro lens I believe the shots are all at 600mm so minimum focus distance around 2.3 metres although I could be wrong. please add your thoughts on the lens for close ups and add shots from the lens regardless of body used View attachment 25190View attachment 25191View attachment 25192View attachment 25193View attachment 25194View attachment 25195View attachment 25196View attachment 25197View attachment 25198View attachment 25199View attachment 25200and shots from the lens regardless of body used

Every one of them looks near perfect to me. From the photographer's standpoint ( I don't do Macro) is shooting with your long lens any more difficult than with a Macro lens?

 

[spudhead]

Every one of them looks near perfect to me. From the photographer's standpoint ( I don't do Macro) is shooting with your long lens any more difficult than with a Macro lens?

Jeff for sure shooting with a true macro lens is way harder, it's just the 200-600 seems so good at most things and close up at 7.8 feet ie 600 mm minimum focus distance its crazy what images the lens is capable of, thanks for looking

 

[Jeff A]

Jeff for sure shooting with a true macro lens is way harder, it's just the 200-600 seems so good at most things and close up at 7.8 feet ie 600 mm minimum focus distance its crazy what images the lens is capable of, thanks for looking

I said that I don't shoot Macro but out of my memory banks, while trying to get a shot of an Egret with my Sony 100-400 GM, a bee landed on a flower in front of me and I made a successful shot. It is nicer to know what your equipment is capable of so you can grab a bonus shot when the opportunity arrises.

 

[Brownie]

For my money they can be equally as difficult and can share some of the same issues. When I was goofing around with it I focused the lens to minimum distance first, and then moved the camera back and forth to find focus on the subject. Similar to macro the DOF is so thin that one tiny movement means no focus. From that standpoint the 200-600 is probably more difficult because of the size. It's easier to cheat and back off minimum distance just enough to let the lens do the focus work. If you ever wanted to know just how unstable you are when pretending to be a tripod, give that a try. It's an eye opener!

 

[spudhead]

For my money they can be equally as difficult and can share some of the same issues. When I was goofing around with it I focused the lens to minimum distance first, and then moved the camera back and forth to find focus on the subject. Similar to macro the DOF is so thin that one tiny movement means no focus. From that standpoint the 200-600 is probably more difficult because of the size. It's easier to cheat and back off minimum distance just enough to let the lens do the focus work. If you ever wanted to know just how unstable you are when pretending to be a tripod, give that a try. It's an eye opener!

I see your play on words Tim

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Agree Macro is way harder than close focussing as indicated by Spud.........shooting close focus with an a9 and stopped down on the 200-600 to 200mm at f7.1 and minimum focus distance of 2.2 m the resulting 4.5mm DOF cant compare with a DOF at less than a mm with a true macro lens at minimum focus distance 1:1. The fundamental decision is whether to partially focus or focus stack...either way a much more challenging situation., including subject nervousness if a live subject.

At 600mm the lower DOF does become more of a challenge but rises substantially from 0 .7mm at min focus of 2.8m distance to 3.5mm as you back off from minimum focus distance. to 5m say. Maybe these are the issues which define the limitations(or benefits) of close focussing with a 200-600mm lens....at true Macro 1:1 and above there is no escape from the very low DOF other then through moving to align a live subject(as an example) parallel to the focal plane or alternatively go for focus stacking in any other orientation to acheive overall focus quality.

The moral of the story is if doing close focussing with a 200-600 it may be better to back off from minimum f0cussing distance from 2.2m to say 5m or more (subject to closing down to 200mm or fully open at 600mm)and achieve a higher DOF to get subjects in total focus.

The ambient lighting level availability in a 3-10 cm gap between subject and lens is another complication of true macro shooting over close focussing with a 200-600mm which again makes things far easier than Macro.

 

[spudhead]

Agree Macro is way harder than close focussing as indicated by Spud.........shooting close focus with an a9 and stopped down on the 200-600 to 200mm at f7.1 and minimum focus distance of 2.2 m the resulting 4.5mm DOF cant compare with a DOF at less than a mm with a true macro lens at minimum focus distance 1:1. The fundamental decision is whether to partially focus or focus stack...either way a much more challenging situation., including subject nervousness if a live subject.

At 600mm the lower DOF does become more of a challenge but rises substantially from 0 .7mm at min focus of 2.8m distance to 3.5mm as you back off from minimum focus distance. to 5m say. Maybe these are the issues which define the limitations(or benefits) of close focussing with a 200-600mm lens....at true Macro 1:1 and above there is no escape from the very low DOF other then through moving to align a live subject(as an example) parallel to the focal plane or alternatively go for focus stacking in any other orientation to acheive overall focus quality.

The moral of the story is if doing close focussing with a 200-600 it may be better to back off from minimum f0cussing distance from 2.2m to say 5m or more (subject to closing down to 200mm or fully open at 600mm)and achieve a higher DOF to get subjects in total focus.

The ambient lighting level availability in a 3-10 cm gap between subject and lens is another complication of true macro shooting over close focussing with a 200-600mm which again makes things far easier than Macro

Hi the shots were all at 600mm but none the less, it is without question harder to use a true macro lens at least in my own experience

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi the shots were all at 600mm but none the less, it is without question harder to use a true macro lens at least in my own experience

Totally agree.......

 

[iain clyne]

It's a lens that never stops giving. This was quite close, not macro but close to minimum focus distance.

DSC08862 by Iain Clyne, on Flickr

 

[spudhead]

It's a lens that never stops giving. This was quite close, not macro but close to minimum focus distance.

DSC08862 by Iain Clyne, on Flickr

Thanks for adding to the thread Ian

 

[Brownie]

It's a lens that never stops giving. This was quite close, not macro but close to minimum focus distance.

DSC08862 by Iain Clyne, on Flickr

In order to make these into pseudo-macros, we've been cropping them to an insane size to see how much the lens can take. It'd be cool to know if this is a crop and how much (remaining MP is a good comparison number). Also, how far will it go? SOme of @spudhead's crops are under 1MP!

 

[Paul stuart]

I find the 200-600 to be quite poor for close work ,ok on a hi resolution sensor you can crop as well ,but the minimum working distance of 2.4m also as the focus breathing is very poor the closer you get to your subject the shorter your f/l becomes really anyoing sony ,the lens is great for mid to long distance ,wishing sony would have another option in the line up ,some middle ground tele photos ie 500mm f4 400mm 4.5 anyway this explains focus breathing at close range https://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/sony-fe-200-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-g-oss-review/

 

[spudhead]

I find the 200-600 to be quite poor for close work ,ok on a hi resolution sensor you can crop as well ,but the minimum working distance of 2.4m also as the focus breathing is very poor the closer you get to your subject the shorter your f/l becomes really anyoing sony ,the lens is great for mid to long distance ,wishing sony would have another option in the line up ,some middle ground tele photos ie 500mm f4 400mm 4.5 anyway this explains focus breathing at close range https://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/sony-fe-200-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-g-oss-review/

Thanks Paul excellent link and read should help a lot

 

[Brownie]

I find the 200-600 to be quite poor for close work ,ok on a hi resolution sensor you can crop as well ,but the minimum working distance of 2.4m also as the focus breathing is very poor the closer you get to your subject the shorter your f/l becomes really anyoing sony ,

From the article:
Please note that the 200-600mm’s shorter MFD means you can get closer to the subject and achieve a higher magnification than the prime despite the breathing effect.

So it still gets higher magnification than the prime. Focus breathing is extremely common. One 200mm Nikon lens has it so badly it ends up at about 120mm. Based on those two examples alone I wouldn't characterize it as 'very poor', it may in fact be above average.

Rather than be concerned about lowering FL at close distance, I'll concentrate on what it can do.

 

[spudhead]

From the article:
Please note that the 200-600mm’s shorter MFD means you can get closer to the subject and achieve a higher magnification than the prime despite the breathing effect.

So it still gets higher magnification than the prime. Focus breathing is extremely common. One 200mm Nikon lens has it so badly it ends up at about 120mm. Based on those two examples alone I wouldn't characterize it as 'very poor', it may in fact be above average.

Rather than be concerned about lowering FL at close distance, I'll concentrate on what it can do.

similar thoughts to me Tim and I was aware of some of the techniques regarding focus etc, I have used and tested this lens since I took delivery of it on Uk launch day and believe for 99% of us hobby photographers it's really good at most things and affordable for most. Paul is a really good photographer, and he has the same dilemma as many of us he wants ever better results and more lens options, the wish list he has is similar to mine and honestly is going to be too expensive if it ever happens. I do not have 600 mm f4 prime, but I have had good results with 300 2.8 g close up with and without teleconverters on both a-mount and e-mount but that is probably for another thread.

 

[Paul stuart]

From the article:
Please note that the 200-600mm’s shorter MFD means you can get closer to the subject and achieve a higher magnification than the prime despite the breathing effect.

So it still gets higher magnification than the prime. Focus breathing is extremely common. One 200mm Nikon lens has it so badly it ends up at about 120mm. Based on those two examples alone I wouldn't characterize it as 'very poor', it may in fact be above average.

Rather than be concerned about lowering FL at close distance, I'll concentrate on what it can do.

A 100-400mm gets you closer a better choice sigma ,tamron or gm ,my old m43 olympus 300mm prime at 600mm equiv fl would focus down to 1.2 m and was like 1;3 macro capable ,the problem is that for close up images (200-600mm) you are not getting a 600mm f/l and more like 500mm f/l ,i do not think that big primes are a soloution for macro type shots either ,i now carry my samyang 135mm f1;8 that focuses down to 68 cm which is very nice and will crop very well being the sharpest of lenses ,not saying that the lens is bad it is fact super for wildlife and a reasonable size and weight even the 600 does not hold much over it in sharpness ,they just play much better with t/c ,the whole point was the op wanted to do macro with the 200-600 it is not the best choice for this type of application .

 

[spudhead]

A 100-400mm gets you closer a better choice sigma ,tamron or gm ,my old m43 olympus 300mm prime at 600mm equiv fl would focus down to 1.2 m and was like 1;3 macro capable ,the problem is that for close up images (200-600mm) you are not getting a 600mm f/l and more like 500mm f/l ,i do not think that big primes are a soloution for macro type shots either ,i now carry my samyang 135mm f1;8 that focuses down to 68 cm which is very nice and will crop very well being the sharpest of lenses ,not saying that the lens is bad it is fact super for wildlife and a reasonable size and weight even the 600 does not hold much over it in sharpness ,they just play much better with t/c ,the whole point was the op wanted to do macro with the 200-600 it is not the best choice for this type of application .

Paul, I didn't really want to do macro with this lens it was just that people were posting shots with the 200-600 in what I will call close up so I gave it I try some time ago all be it with much less cropping, and then decided to see how far I could crop hence quite a few of the images are soft, and that was part of the exercise. I was in fact a little surprised at how well some of the shots looked given that many are in fact just over 1mp and a few under. I fully understand that as you explain there are lots of better options, thanks Paul for your wise comments and bothering to look

 

[Brownie]

A 100-400mm gets you closer a better choice sigma ,tamron or gm ,my old m43 olympus 300mm prime at 600mm equiv fl would focus down to 1.2 m and was like 1;3 macro capable ,the problem is that for close up images (200-600mm) you are not getting a 600mm f/l and more like 500mm f/l ,i do not think that big primes are a soloution for macro type shots either ,i now carry my samyang 135mm f1;8 that focuses down to 68 cm which is very nice and will crop very well being the sharpest of lenses ,not saying that the lens is bad it is fact super for wildlife and a reasonable size and weight even the 600 does not hold much over it in sharpness ,they just play much better with t/c ,the whole point was the op wanted to do macro with the 200-600 it is not the best choice for this type of application .

There are clearly many, many lenses that do better at closeup shooting and pseudo-macro than the 200-600. That's not the point of the thread. You're looking at this from a technical standpoint and that's not the intent. It it's not meant to promote one lens over others, nor proclaim the 200-600 a superior lens for closeup or macro. The thread was borne of Gary's realization that in addition to being a fine, relatively compact long telephoto zoom, it's also credible for closer images with a little finagling in post. More like:

"Gee, look how well this does at close focus, I wonder how much we can get away with?"

It's about having a little fun instead of worrying about specifications.

 

[iain clyne]

In order to make these into pseudo-macros, we've been cropping them to an insane size to see how much the lens can take. It'd be cool to know if this is a crop and how much (remaining MP is a good comparison number). Also, how far will it go? SOme of @spudhead's crops are under 1MP!

Its about 70% the size of the original.

 

[Paul stuart]

There are clearly many, many lenses that do better at closeup shooting and pseudo-macro than the 200-600. That's not the point of the thread. You're looking at this from a technical standpoint and that's not the intent. It it's not meant to promote one lens over others, nor proclaim the 200-600 a superior lens for closeup or macro. The thread was borne of Gary's realization that in addition to being a fine, relatively compact long telephoto zoom, it's also credible for closer images with a little finagling in post. More like:

"Gee, look how well this does at close focus, I wonder how much we can get away with?"

It's about having a little fun instead of worrying about specifications.

i am looking at it from a technical standpoint ,there are better options and worse options ,it is nice to know the limitations ,i agree go have fun with your setup whatever it maybe.