**Camera Nerd Warning** Macro Lens Test - BTS #92 (Patreon)

I spent a inappropriate amount of money on lenses recently. 

That's over $2,000 USD in macro glass right there. The zeiss lens alone contributed to over half of that, however. Ooo, shiny. I feel like James Bond.

Now that my flexing is over, why did I buy these? Let me first say that the ONLY reason my wife let me do this is because I told her I'd return either all 4 lenses or 3 out of the 4. Alright, with that out of the way, let's talk macro lenses. When you think of what you know about macro lenses, it seems like them and miniature photography/videography would be a match made in heaven. Let's first start by defining what a macro lens is: a macro lens has the ability to focus on objects that are very close to the lens of the camera. The olympus 30mm macro lens up there has a minimum focal distance of 3.7", meaning that is the closest an object can be to the front element of the lens before it's impossible to achieve a sharp, in focus image. 

I dunno about you, but that looks like significantly less than 3.7". Contrast that with the typical lens I use, the Sigma 18-35mm, with an 11" minimum focus distance. 

Again, that looks shorter than 11". I assume this has something to do with the sensor of the camera. The other thing that makes a macro lens special is the magnification. A macro lens has a 1:1, or 1x (or higher) magnification effect which means the lens is able to reproduce an object's size identical in camera compared to real life. Other lens, like my Sigma, have a magnification effect of x.23 making whatever I'm shooting appear as 1/4 the size of what it is. Combine that with the fact that you can't get that close to whatever object you're shooting, and that makes it quite difficult to get crispy miniature shots. So, I did some tests. 

1080p Macro Lens Test: https://youtu.be/IdlA66yu6SI

4k Macro Lens Test: https://youtu.be/FyK7vpBRb1E

You should watch these videos and see if you can really tell a difference between the lenses. I wanted to test a few things. Some of you may remember I picked up a fancy new camera recently, the Black Magic Cinema Camera 6k. The intention of this camera was to use it for my main, painting camera due to the higher resolution recording. I haven't made the swap yet because I'm just scared about rigging up an expensive camera on my ceiling rig. I don't want it to fall, cause any damage, etc. BUT, with Ben Kantor coming over at the end of this month to work on the first of three digital courses, I wanted to figure out how to use this camera w/o the fear of it exploding so I thought this was a good start.

<CONCLUSIONS BEYOND THIS POINT>

1. The 4k video does look better at 4k vs the 1080p one on my QHD (halfway between 1080p and 4k). This is to be expected, but it's good to confirm it. I'd be curious if the video looks better on 1080p monitors despite not being able to "take advantage" of the resolution. Let me know below! Make sure the "2160p" setting is checked. 

2. None of the lenses really look that much different. Sometimes, like on 2A, I didn't nail the focus on his face. You can see it looks sharp on his shoulder, immediately behind his face. This gives you an idea of the depth of field we're working with here. Here is the order: 1A) Panasonic 12-35 (control - this is what I've shot all my painting with for 3+ years), 2A) Olympus 30mm Macro, 3A) Olympus 60mm Macro, 2A) Zeiss 50mm Macro, 2B) Canon 30mm Macro, 2C) Sigma 18-35mm (control - this is what I shoot all my other b-roll, beauty shots with for 3+ years)

3. Holy COW does the BMPCC replicate the color SO much better than my GH5. I use a LUT for color correction called the "Leeming LUT One". It's lauded for it's color accuracy (so long as you expose and white balance correctly). The red of the jacked and the warmth of the skin tone is there. In fact, it might be a little too lively to be totally accurate. It seems a little too warm. This alone is enough of a reason to start using this for my YT videos. 

Let's look a little deeper into the lens sharpness. I took a still from each video clip where I was holding the model as still as I could. Hopefully this is a representation of how sharp an image might be on this camera in the setting that I typically use it in.

These images are all zoomed in 400% to see if we can find more information. Looks like I didn't nail the focus on the Canon 30mm macro perfectly. Obviously, the BMPCC is going to win because it has 1.5X as many pixels to play with, but comparing the images that were taken on the same camera, I have some conclusions. 

While there may be slight differences in the optics, when it's put through the compression of youtube, it doesn't matter. The Zeiss lens costs $1,100+ and it's maybe 5% better than what I have already in terms of image sharpness. I don't take advantage of the macro lens capability of being able to get super close to a mini because it's impossible to paint on camera with a lens that close to the mini. I actually need space to get my brush in there and see what I'm doing.

This is a shot of the Sigma lens, now imagine the same thing with a macro lens, but 3 times closer to the mini. With this setup, the camera is right next to my face and the lens blocks a decent portion of where I can go with my head. Trying to get any closer is just not possible. Ok, so that's video, what about photography? Here's the closest picture I can take with each of my lenses (not the canon 30mm macro, that one was giving me problems).

Panasonic 12-35

Zeiss 50mm

Olympus 30mm (I actually had to use another couple lights to light the mini because the camera was so close that it was blocking the light). This lens actually has a 1.25:1 magnification effect!

Olympus 60mm

Sigma 18-35

Conclusions? If you need detail shots, a macro lens is your only real solution. Sure, you can zoom in digitally, but you lose fidelity like we can see in this comparison.

Zoomed in photo on the right. Maybe uploading to patreon isn't doing it justice, so here's a link to the full res image: https://i.imgur.com/sdUDWSV.jpg

It's worth mentioning that you can still take normal photos with a macro lens. It doesn't need to be zoomed in. Here's an example with the Olympus 60mm Macro. 

So what's the macro lens conclusion? For video where I'm on camera painting, the value of macro lens seems like it's not useable. For photography (and also videography where I'm taking beauty shots), being able to take photos close up could be useful for neat closeups for your paint jobs when you really want to show off how not smooth those blends are, haha. Macro lenses can do more than normal lenses while still doing what a normal lens can do with one notable exception: you can't find a real zoom macro lens. The zoom feature is very valuable for videography to change up the framing of the shot based on what you're shooting. I do this all the time while painting: zoom in while I'm painting the face, zoom out for larger details. The answer isn't clear, but hopefully now you can better choose what's right for your budgets and needs. I will likely keep 1 macro lens for my BMPCC6k to get nifty, up-close shots for my b-roll. That's all for now! 

<3 Scott