Do macro lenses do well as normal lenses?

cab.in.bostoncab.in.boston Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
edited January 2, 2011 in Accessories
Since they're optimized for close focus/magnification, do macro lenses tend to not do as well when used "normally?" For instance, if I wanted a portrait lens and a macro, could I go with a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and use it as both? I understand the max apertures of macro lenses tend to be smaller than traditional portrait lenses, since at macro distances you don't need f/1.4 for razor thin DoF. But if one is willing to live with a max aperture of f/2.8 (or f/2 for Tamron 60mm f/2), do the lenses do well when out of their macro element, or are they really best up close and suffer otherwise?

I'm just curious. I'm not in the market right now, as I have other photographic desires before either a macro or portrait lens, but I have wondered this...
Father, husband, dog lover, engineer, Nikon shooter
My site 365 Project

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited January 1, 2011
    "True" macro 1:1 lenses tend to have very high sharpness, even wide open, and they also tend to have extremely high contrast. This tends to make images of more normal subject matter "pop". Many true macro lenses are a little slow to focus as their only fault.

    I have the older Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 Macro and I truly enjoy it for some landscape and stitched landscape photography, portraits (mostly head-shots and head-and-shoulders) and other general applications where focus speed is not an issue. By f5.6 it is one of the sharpest lenses I own. clap.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Dan7312Dan7312 Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited January 1, 2011
    Just "by the numbers", i.e. it's MTF chart, the Canon 180mm macro lens is one of their best in terms it's abiilty to pass the contrast in a scene to the image on the sensor. The MTF chart isn't the only thing that affects the overall quality of a lens but I think that in general a lot of people consider this to be an very good lens.

    cab.in.boston wrote: »
    Since they're optimized for close focus/magnification, do macro lenses tend to not do as well when used "normally?" For instance, if I wanted a portrait lens and a macro, could I go with a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and use it as both? I understand the max apertures of macro lenses tend to be smaller than traditional portrait lenses, since at macro distances you don't need f/1.4 for razor thin DoF. But if one is willing to live with a max aperture of f/2.8 (or f/2 for Tamron 60mm f/2), do the lenses do well when out of their macro element, or are they really best up close and suffer otherwise?

    I'm just curious. I'm not in the market right now, as I have other photographic desires before either a macro or portrait lens, but I have wondered this...
    Dan

    http://www.danalphotos.com

    http://www.pluralsight.com

    http://twitter.com/d114
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited January 1, 2011
    Have to second Ziggy. My Tamron 90mm macro lens is my go-to portrait lens.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited January 1, 2011
    cab.in.boston wrote: »
    Since they're optimized for close focus/magnification, do macro lenses tend to not do as well when used "normally?" For instance, if I wanted a portrait lens and a macro, could I go with a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and use it as both? I understand the max apertures of macro lenses tend to be smaller than traditional portrait lenses, since at macro distances you don't need f/1.4 for razor thin DoF. But if one is willing to live with a max aperture of f/2.8 (or f/2 for Tamron 60mm f/2), do the lenses do well when out of their macro element, or are they really best up close and suffer otherwise?

    I'm just curious. I'm not in the market right now, as I have other photographic desires before either a macro or portrait lens, but I have wondered this...


    They are terrific as long as you don't mind them being tack sharp, showing every blemish, hole, mole, scrape and scratch...hey Maybe that's why Gaussian blur was created?headscratch.gif

    They are Great!
    tom wise
  • GrainbeltGrainbelt Registered Users Posts: 478 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    I owned the newer version of the Tamron 90mm F2.8 in pentax mount. The focus limiter switch made 'normal' focusing much quicker than a macro lens that hunted through its entire range, and I found the contrast and color rendering pleasant.
  • rpcrowerpcrowe Registered Users Posts: 733 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    I agree with Ziggy
    I also have the older Tamron f/2.8 90mm macro and have found that it is an excellent head and shoulders portrait lens, given that you have enough distance to shoot with it.

    One of the things which I love about the Tamron is the creamy bokeh it produces. IMO, smooth bokeh (not to confuse this with narrow DOF) is very important since I don't want ragged out-of-focus areas competing with my subject for attention.

    However, I don't use the Tamron as a short telephoto lens for any subject in which I need fast auto-focus. The A/F of this lens is quite accurate but not exceptionally fast. At least not as fast as a Canon USM lens such as my 70-200mm f/4L IS.
Sign In or Register to comment.