Macro/normal lens?

[Dan ives]

this may sound like a very silly and definitely a newbie question but what is the difference between a 70-300 MM macro lens and a normal telephoto zoom lens? I know the macro is for close up photos showing detail etc but why such a big difference in price? Also if the macro lens does a 300 zoom, say for example taking a picture of an aircraft at an air show is it any different than it would be through a lens that is not macro?

 

[jondc]

The macro lens allows the ability to focus at a close difference, it should also offer a scale of 1:1 at its closest focus distance. A normal zoom lens will not focus as close. For distance work stick with a normal telephoto lens and save your money.

 

[Dan ives]

The thing that I don't understand is that some lenses eg:
Sigma 70-300 MM F4-5.6 DG Macro Motorised Lens for Nikon
You can buy new for £78 it seems a lot cheaper than normal lenses is it because it's not got VR?

 

[TimmyG]

Be warned! Some lenses (and from the big names brands too) that are labelled as "macro" aren't true macro lenses. A true macro lens should enable you to focus on a subject at life size - it appears on your sensor at the same size it does in real life (at 1:1 scale) but I doubt very much the zoom you mentioned will be able to do this. I would just interpret the "macro" label as meaning it is capable of close focussing but you need to check the technical specs to confirm by how much. Different brands have different criteria so compare both lenses, there may not be much in it.

If your intended subject is aircraft at an air show the "macro" label is unlikely to make much difference, but the price difference may not be just down to that. What are the lenses you are comparing?

 

[TimmyG]

The thing that I don't understand is that some lenses eg:
Sigma 70-300 MM F4-5.6 DG Macro Motorised Lens for Nikon
You can buy new for £78 it seems a lot cheaper than normal lenses is it because it's not got VR?

Likely one of the factors, VR no doubt requires some complex and expensive mechanics. Brand name is another. Age of the lens could be Another one. It could be old stock, it might have a reputation for not being particularly sharp or maybe the autofocus is unreliable. You tend to get what you pay for with lenses, but it may suit your requirements.

Edit: Have a look at this review for it:
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/reviews/lenses/sigma-70-300mm-dg-macro

It is what it is, a cheap lens that will give you good range, but may not have the best optics and you'll need good technique to avoid image shake. If you are planning on hand holding the camera for your airshow shots, I think it is worth considering spending a bit more and getting VR to help with image stabilisation. It's whatever your budget will stretch to though, you make do with what you've got....

 

[Dan ives]

Thanks very much for the response that is very helpful, I don't want anything too 'professional' like an f/2 300 zoom costing thousands just something of a half decent quality for £200-£300 that will reach 50ft down the garden to capture a blue tit (for example) I was led to believe that the lenses worth getting we're the ones with the lowest f number as you get better image quality, depth etc which I am sure you could if you have a high end camera without crop etc etc. Macro doesn't really interest me too much on a zoom I would probably buy a smaller 50 for that to be honest.
Appreciate the time you have taken to respond there is so much info out there you don't know where to start sometimes!
Learning curve ....

 

[odd jim]

this may sound like a very silly and definitely a newbie question but what is the difference between a 70-300 MM macro lens and a normal telephoto zoom lens? I know the macro is for close up photos showing detail etc but why such a big difference in price? Also if the macro lens does a 300 zoom, say for example taking a picture of an aircraft at an air show is it any different than it would be through a lens that is not macro?

The 70-300 won't be a proper macro lens anyway. Treat it as a normal telephoto.

 

[Phil V]

Thanks very much for the response that is very helpful, I don't want anything too 'professional' like an f/2 300 zoom costing thousands just something of a half decent quality for £200-£300 that will reach 50ft down the garden to capture a blue tit (for example) I was led to believe that the lenses worth getting we're the ones with the lowest f number as you get better image quality, depth etc which I am sure you could if you have a high end camera without crop etc etc. Macro doesn't really interest me too much on a zoom I would probably buy a smaller 50 for that to be honest.
Appreciate the time you have taken to respond there is so much info out there you don't know where to start sometimes!
Learning curve ....

As you are beginning to appreciate, lenses vary in quality quite a bit.

In answer to your original post, it's not about the macro functionality of that particular lens, it's the general IQ and build quality that differentiates the two.