Lensbaby, yes, or no?

shorty6049 · Mar 15, 2007

but , now back to the children (our little lensbabies), whats everyones thought on those, that hasnt contributed? check out rmh159's new thread "Has that pic been Photoshop'ed? " if you would like to continue the discussion above with us.

Tolyk · Mar 16, 2007

shorty6049 said:
yea, the problem is, now everyone is buying minolta lenses for that reason, so they're still expensive (relatively) on ebay and there are usually quite a few bids, i'd have to check out a camera store though for some, maybe they'd have better prices. One thing i dont understand is , whats the difference between a macro lens, and something like a 70-300? its the macro lens just a lens that is always set at 100mm? would it produce close to the same results as a zoom lens at 100mm? (i would assume possibly they'd be clearer because it woudl be a prime lens, but is that the only difference?)

A macro lens is a lens which produces a 1:1 aspect ratio from subject to film/sensor. It's not a specific focal length, it's a category (well, it's become a category at least)

The Sigma 70-300 has macro-like abilities from the 180mm to 300mm range, with the flick of a switch. However, this isn't true macro, but it's close enough to it for most people's usage (I'm actually contemplating buying that exact lens right now as well, I have it on my wishlist on the site I purchase from

) as it gives a 1:2 ratio, not the true 1:1.

Hope this helped ya Shorty

Btw, I'm a newb too, so if I was incorrect about any of that, feel free to correct me