macro vs non-macro

Macro lenses are great for portriats, but some people don't like them because they're a little too sharp, so you can see anything and everything on people's faces.
 
as long as it isn't the MP-65mm canon macro lens, that goes from 1-5x. I believe that lens cannot focus to infinity. Other than that, a normal macro lens should be fine, as long as it focuses to infinity. macro lenses are usually very sharp too
 
Macro doesn't have anything to do with sharpness. It's a term that describes a lens that can achieve a magnification ratio of 1:1 or greater.

Watch out for manufacturers that use the term "macro" to sell lenses. They have dilluted the meaning to be anything that focuses closer than normal (3 feet or so), or can get magnification ratios of 1:4 or better. Real macro = 1:1 or better. This means if you photograph a dime with film, you could lay the dime over the image of the dime on the neg, and it would be the same size. 1:4 means the dime on the neg would be 1/4th life size.

Macro lenses are usually in the higher end of a manufacturer's lens line, and they are usually prime lenses. These factors could be why they are sharper than some other lenses, but if you compare a macro lens to a high quality prime lens (or even some high end zooms), they should be about the same in terms of sharpness.
 
so... why wouldnt u buy a macro lens? seems like, just buy a macro incase u need the macro setting...
 
well, a "real" macro lens is going to be a prime lens. A zoom macro lens will usually only focus to a 1:2 ratio. Usually a 50mm, 60mm, 90 or 100mm, 150mm or 180mm lens will be your good macro lenses. Unfortunately, do to the lens being required to focus very close, the lenses usually do not focus as quickly as other primes, but they can be used for other good things as long as you don't need them to focus closely.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top