DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Macro lens for normal photography?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/22/2008 11:17:24 PM · #1
I am considering on a getting a macro lens for summer, and I was wondering... How well do macro lenses do in normal shooting (non--macro) such as land scapes concerts and portraits. As I have an eye on the Tokina 35mm 2.8 Macro, I know this lens isn't available yet but it could make a fine 50mm replacement in a aps-c camera.
Thanks
04/22/2008 11:21:09 PM · #2
I know for a fact that the Nikon Macro lenses have a focus correction system for doing their up close stuff-- that basically means you can use them as a razor sharp normal lens, as well as for macro purposes. The 60mm f/2.8 works great for just about everything. I haven't used the 105mm or the 200mm, but I imagine they're the same since they use the same type of focusing system.
04/22/2008 11:22:11 PM · #3
35mm macro...errr youre going to have to get really close to your subjects
04/22/2008 11:29:18 PM · #4
Originally posted by KelvinC:

35mm macro...errr youre going to have to get really close to your subjects


I agree. Your working distance is going to be very short, not so hot for insect macro since they tend to get spooked easily. As for your original question, my canon 100mm macro is very sharp and would work great for a decent range telephoto, though a bit slow on the focus, imo. i would consider something a bit longer for macro work, but that is just my opinion.
04/22/2008 11:29:51 PM · #5
If you have the budget the 105mm Micro Nikkor is excellent or maybe the new 60mm from Nikon.
04/23/2008 12:23:15 AM · #6
I use my Sigma 105mm f/2.8 for many non-macro photography and the results have never disappointed me (well, that may not be exactly true, but I assure you that any disappointments were user induced, not fault of the lens).
04/23/2008 08:35:29 AM · #7
Agreed, I've used my Tamron 90/2.8 for both macro and normal photography, with great results. I expect this would be true for any current mainstream macro lens.
04/23/2008 09:16:03 AM · #8
The Sigma 70mm f2.8 Macro. Check the reviews, great lens for the price.
04/23/2008 10:07:41 AM · #9
I just got this one. VEry fun to use. bokeh is excellent - and when it comes down to it, if you get sharp images with great bokeh, I can't see how you could dislike it. The macro gets super tight and it's lighter than the Nikon 105 at less than half the price.

PS: 90$ tamron rebate right now BH link with rebate - I got the rebate check back in less than a week after I sent it.

One more thing: pics

Originally posted by paddles:

Agreed, I've used my Tamron 90/2.8 for both macro and normal photography, with great results. I expect this would be true for any current mainstream macro lens.
04/23/2008 10:43:07 AM · #10
Originally posted by ben4345:

I am considering on a getting a macro lens for summer, and I was wondering... How well do macro lenses do in normal shooting (non--macro) such as land scapes concerts and portraits.


Your are on a great site to see for yourself! Go to the top of this page and select Equipment->Lenses and check out a few. The new 105mm Micro Nikkor with AF-S and VR makes for a great general purpose telephoto/macro. Generally macro lenses are slow focusing and don't have VR, neither of which matters for typical macrophotography.

Originally posted by ben4345:

As I have an eye on the Tokina 35mm 2.8 Macro, I know this lens isn't available yet but it could make a fine 50mm replacement in a aps-c camera.


Buy the 35mm F/2 AF Nikkor (or perhaps the Sigma 30mm F/1.4) and forget about a macro lens with such a short focal length.
04/23/2008 10:54:19 AM · #11
I agree that any macro-lens (except for Canon's MP-E 65) makes a great sharp multi-purpose prime. I have the Tamron 90/2.8, and it is a great portrait lens. I am not too sure about a 35mm macro though. I was a bit surprised when Tokina anounced it. I sometimes chase the bugs away when working 1:1 with my 90. How close will you have te get using a 35mm at 1:1?

On the other hand, film photographers did use 50mm macro lenses, so there must be a use for it. Just be aware of the possible problem of working distance for macro shots.
04/23/2008 11:13:54 AM · #12
Macros will work well for landscape and portrait. They will not work well for action as their focus is way too slow. I use my 180mm Macro a fair amount as a telephoto.
04/23/2008 11:23:49 AM · #13
Originally posted by Camabs:

...I sometimes chase the bugs away when working 1:1 with my 90. How close will you have to get using a 35mm at 1:1?


Damn close! I have a 35mm macro lens for the old Exakta system, and used it quite a bit. At 1:1, the working distance is like a quarter inch.
A 35mm macro for APS-C will share a similar issue, even though the angle of view will be more like a 50mm lens. I'd personally go longer for Macro, perhaps with a 60-100mm focal length.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/02/2020 08:16:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/02/2020 08:16:49 PM EDT.