Macro Lens Questions

H

Halflap

Messages
291
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I feel like having a go at macro and was thinking of going for a dedicated macro lens. Have a couple of questions first.

1. How do the Macro lenses stand up quality wise against a 'normal' lens of the same focal length when used at longer distances (eg for portrait shots).

2. I know that you can use extension tubes to increase the magnification / decrease the focusing distance on a normal lens. Can you use these on a macro lens to get even closer.
 
Just to add, there don't appear to be any duff macro lenses about - they are all good. You just have to choose between 50mm-ish and 100mm-ish. Most folks go for the latter, as it gives a bit more working distance and room to get some light in.
 
don't forget the Sigma 150mm macro - one of the best
 
Most macro lenses are designed to perform at their best at close focussing distances and fall off towards normal focus range.

Macros will undoubtedly have a greater range of diaphragm, dedicated macros going down to f32 or even f45.

As with anything, use whatever it is for what it was designed for....a ferrari wasn't designed for carrying kayaks on the roof, so it isn't very good at it, but I daresay you could strap one on if you really wanted to.
 
Blapto said:
Have you tested this yourself?

Many macros are softer than equivalent focal length primes when focussed to infinity. Some zooms are sharper.
Click to expand...

I doubt that is true. Most macros have a very modest optical specification for their relatively high price, so they are highly corrected throughout their range. In particular, their modest maximum apertures afford much more scope in other areas.

I would certainly pitch my two Canon macros against any zoom, and when I compared a 50 1.8 against my EF-S 60mm 2.8 macro, the macro romped away. Edge definition was night and day.
 
The nearest comparison I have are the 180L macro and the 200L prime, which are both marketed as being of similar quality. Focussing closer than 2 or 3 metres then the macro is streets ahead but this gets flipped when focussing at longer distances. The 180L has a concave front element which I assume is responsible for the change in performance at the longer distances.
I don't have any other macro/non-macro lenses at similar lengths and quality to be able to offer a valid comparison.

Bob
 
Blapto said:
Have you tested this yourself?
Click to expand...

The op asked if a macro was good for portraits, which it is and yes they are sharper than your average prime for that sort of work. They are also reasonable for longer distances in an emergency (like this one I saw coming down when I was doing some macro).

Put it this way, If I had to choose between a macro or non macro prime and I was interested in doing macro to start with, which would I choose ... the macro that could be used as a prime as well or a prime that could be used as .. a prime.

90mm f2.8 macro lens



 
I'm not sure it's helpful to debate whether macros or primes in general are sharper here or there.

The important difference is that primes are fast and macros focus close. For example, if you want to shoot portraits, Canon does a lovely 85 1.8 for shallow depth of field, or 100 2. No macro can compete with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top