Quoted By:
Is telephoto macro superior to close macro?
Macro is macro, but, I've been using 30mm oly and noticed when up super close the edges appear blurred.
This lens is supposedly good and doesn't have optical distortion and supposedly has corner to corner sharpness but I'm imagining that maybe my corner blur is due to perspective/proximity itself here?
The more I think about it, with a tiny lens up super close, how could something flat and in focus at the edge of the sensor size NOT be slightly blurred? It's being viewed from an entirely different perspective and in this case (picrel) the field isn't perfectly flat but when center focusing past the matte layer, other parts that are still sharp are focused on the matte later, and this stuff is fractions of a hair's width.
When I move the camera further from shit the edges look fine, they only fall apart when I get ultra close.
I'm planning to scan some film negatives and if I were to use MFT I wouldn't be focusing so close (I'd need just 0.5x magnification since negs bigger than sensor) but I imagine if my suspicions are right, if I found some smaller negatives (sub 35mm formats) and wanted to 1:1 or 1.25:1 them with this, the ultra short distance would be an issue?
Should I move to a 105mm setup to avoid issues? Or am I simply doing something wrong?
I see people say long macro is better/easier but people seem to say that because it's easier not having to get so close to subjects. I don't know if being so close has negative affects on actually capturing things, but from my little usage so far it sure seem to and stopping down doesn't seem to help. Only moving back.
The center of picrel isn't razor sharp but it's in proper focus.
This is focused through the anti-glare coating which is visible in other parts. If the screen were glossy the center would appear much sharper but that's beside the point. It's a YouTube thumb at nearly 1.25x mag on 20MP scaled to 1/3 from a 94PPI screen.