Macro/Telephoto question

SloYerRoll

Hey all,

Can anyone tell me how telephoto lens's are also macro lens's?
Here's the link to the lens in question when this question popped up.
I would think that since there is such dramatic differences between the two, you would need seperate glass for each type.
Thanks for any insight you have ahead of time.

Cheers,
-Jon

Richard

SloYerRoll wrote:

Hey all,

Can anyone tell me how telephoto lens's are also macro lens's?
Here's the link to the lens in question when this question popped up.
I would think that since there is such dramatic differences between the two, you would need seperate glass for each type.
Thanks for any insight you have ahead of time.

Cheers,
-Jon

I think that's only possible when nobody keeps an eye on the marketing folks. I don't understand how a lens with a minimal focal distance of 1.5m can be called macro.

rjpat

This isn't a true macro lens, as it only goes to 1:3.9, and, the way I understand it, you have to go to 1:1 (life size) to be a true macro. I have a cheap tamrom zoom with a macro feature (1:2) and it pretty much sucks. As far as your question about a tele being a macro, the better macros are teles (canon 100, canon 180), which gives you more working room between the lens and the subject. This is not to say that the Canon 60 is not good, just talking about teles.

SloYerRoll

I figured the lens in question sucked.
I'm a firm believer of, "You get what you pay for" (even though I don't have allot of dough).
The claim didn't seem to make sense and it seems that I have seen a few other places that offer a tele/macro lens.
Looks like anther trip to the library so I can upgrade my gray matter.

Thanks for the info. Any other info from anyone else is welcome.

-Jon