macro lenses

[photo_chick]

It really depends on what macro lens you are talking about. I had an old Sigma 28-80 macro that made a good walkaround lens at that time. The aperture and focal length were no different than a "normal" lens in that range. But I probably would not choose a prime macro as a general walkaround lens any more than I'd choose a "normal' prime.

A lot of it comes down to personal preference and shooting style.

 

[SorcererGrandma]

It really depends on what macro lens you are talking about. I had an old Sigma 28-80 macro that made a good walkaround lens at that time. The aperture and focal length were no different than a "normal" lens in that range. But I probably would not choose a prime macro as a general walkaround lens any more than I'd choose a "normal' prime.

A lot of it comes down to personal preference and shooting style.

That's about the size I had in mind. Maybe I'll give it a try and see how it works out for me. Good to know that you have used this type of lens in both ways.

 

[My2Girls66]

In my searches over the past few days- I've been debating whether to get a macro(90mm 2.8 Tamron) and use it as a general purpose lens also or get the Nikon 85mm 1.8. I haven't come across any zoom lenses that are true macros. The true macros are all fixed. 60mm, 85mm 90mm, 105mm.....
I have a zoom(28-90mm) lens that has a macro setting that is a good all purpose lens but it is not a true macro. It says 1:2.3, 1:3, 1:3.5 on it.
From what I have read, if you want to do true macro you need a 1:1 lens which are the fixed ones.
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Nikon 60mm 2.8 micro
etc...

 

[photo_chick]

In my searches over the past few days- I've been debating whether to get a macro(90mm 2.8 Tamron) and use it as a general purpose lens also or get the Nikon 85mm 1.8. I haven't come across any zoom lenses that are true macros. The true macros are all fixed. 60mm, 85mm 90mm, 105mm.....
I have a zoom(28-90mm) lens that has a macro setting that is a good all purpose lens but it is not a true macro. It says 1:2.3, 1:3, 1:3.5 on it.
From what I have read, if you want to do true macro you need a 1:1 lens which are the fixed ones.
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Nikon 60mm 2.8 micro
etc...

True macros are not necessarily primes. Traditionally a true macro is a lens that will represent the subject in a 1:1 ratio on the film plane. But the definition has evolved and there are macro lenses that go down to around 1:4, which on a 35mm sized film plane is close to 1:1 on a 4x6 print. I suspect with aps-c sized sensors we may see that evolve even more.

A prime lens is certainly more desirable for macro photography. When you consider the shallow depth of field that is created by the small distance to the subject you want the sharpest lens possible. But it's not necessary.

 

[pjacobi]

Have you considered adding extension tubes to a regular prime lens for macro work? Extension tube will allow focusing on closer object. You do loose the ability to focus on infinity, so they need to be removed for normal focus.


-Paul

 

[SorcererGrandma]

Have you considered adding extension tubes to a regular prime lens for macro work? Extension tube will allow focusing on closer object. You do loose the ability to focus on infinity, so they need to be removed for normal focus.


-Paul

I have, but wondered whether the AF would still function properly?

 

[VVFF]

I have, but wondered whether the AF would still function properly?

It will, you'll lose infinity focus with it attached however.

 

[pjacobi]

I have, but wondered whether the AF would still function properly?

Canon brand (probably Nikon brand) extension tubes will allow autofocus to function properly.

There are some cheep off-brand extension tubes that only allow manual focus. This many not be a big loss because you will probably want to do manual focus, anyway.


-Paul

 

[MarkBarbieri]

A macro lens is just like a normal lens. The only difference is that the minimum distance that it can focus on something is smaller than a normal lens. One very small negative side effect of this is that it can take longer to focus because it has to search through a longer range of possible focus distances. If you are in the focus range of both lenses, a macro lens and a non-macro lens will take essentially the same picture if their settings are the same (same focal length and aperture).

There are two options for taking macro pictures with a non-macro camera. One is to use a close-up filter. This is a filter that works like a reading glass for your lens. You can get very cheap ones that have a horrible impact on your picture. You can also get expensive ones that have a very minimal effect on your pictures.

The other option has been mentioned above - extension tubes. These are hollow tubes that fit between your camera and your lens.

Both techniques for taking macro pictures with a non-macro lens have a significant negative side effect. While they enable to focus on closer objects, they take away your ability to focus on more distant objects. The effect is pretty severe. While you have a close-up filter or an extension tube on your lens, you won't be able to shoot things more than a few feet away. The actual distance depends on the lens and the close-up filter or extension tube, but in most circumstances, you'll need to take the near focus device off for non-macro shots.

If you buy extension tubes, I recommend the Kenko tubes. They are significantly cheaper than the OEM tubes and work exactly the same. Unlike the super-cheap tubes, they allow your AF and aperture to still work. Because they are essentially just hollow tubes, there is no picture quality difference between the Kenko and the OEM tubes.

 

[Groucho]

In my searches over the past few days- I've been debating whether to get a macro(90mm 2.8 Tamron) and use it as a general purpose lens also or get the Nikon 85mm 1.8. I haven't come across any zoom lenses that are true macros. The true macros are all fixed. 60mm, 85mm 90mm, 105mm.....
I have a zoom(28-90mm) lens that has a macro setting that is a good all purpose lens but it is not a true macro. It says 1:2.3, 1:3, 1:3.5 on it.
From what I have read, if you want to do true macro you need a 1:1 lens which are the fixed ones.
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Nikon 60mm 2.8 micro
etc...

True macros are not necessarily primes. Traditionally a true macro is a lens that will represent the subject in a 1:1 ratio on the film plane. But the definition has evolved and there are macro lenses that go down to around 1:4, which on a 35mm sized film plane is close to 1:1 on a 4x6 print. I suspect with aps-c sized sensors we may see that evolve even more.

A prime lens is certainly more desirable for macro photography. When you consider the shallow depth of field that is created by the small distance to the subject you want the sharpest lens possible. But it's not necessary.

I'm more with My2Girls66 on this one. IMHO a "true" macro is at least 1:2. "Macro" zooms are not really zooms, and some "macro" primes aren't really, either. (I've got a Sigma 28mm that calls itself a macro but only goes to 1:4. That's "close focusing", not "macro", in my book!)

Macros are not necessarily any faster than any other lens (most max out at F2.8 - which is fast for a zoom but slow for a prime), and the short DoF is only when focusing closely. A photo taken with a regular 100mm lens at F4 will have exactly the same DoF as a one taken with a macro 100mm at F4.

In other words - if you like the focal length and the speed, a macro lens will work perfectly as a "regular" lens. The downside is that they tend to be larger and heavier, the upside is that they tend to be very high-quality.