I'm confused...what are the reasons why someone would choose a macro lens as a main walkaround lens, over a non-macro lens?
Do you mean a lens with macro capabilities or a dedicated macro lens?
My main walk-about lens is the Tamron 28-75 macro. It's not a dedicated macro lens but can be used for macros (1:3.9). I find this very useful. I can go from regular shots to closeups with the same lens.
I'm confused...what are the reasons why someone would choose a macro lens as a main walkaround lens, over a non-macro lens?
Because that someone wants to shoot macro and/or enjoys the close focusing
abilities of macro lenses. Medium telephoto lenses like a 100mm/2.8 macro
are also great for kandid shots in public places.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Do you mean a lens with macro capabilities or a dedicated macro lens?
My main walk-about lens is the Tamron 28-75 macro. It's not a dedicated macro lens but can be used for macros (1:3.9). I find this very useful. I can go from regular shots to closeups with the same lens.
I guess a lens with a macro capability, more so than a dedicated macro. For example, the Sigma 17-70. It's identified as a macro lens. So would it function just like a normal 17-70 lens, but also allow you to shoot macro shots? When would a normal 17-70 not enabled you to shoot macro?
I guess a lens with a macro capability, more so than a dedicated macro. For example, the Sigma 17-70. It's identified as a macro lens. So would it function just like a normal 17-70 lens, but also allow you to shoot macro shots? When would a normal 17-70 not enabled you to shoot macro?
These zoom lenses marked "macro" are more marketing than true macro. They do not approach true 1:1 macro magnifications and are probably not optically equal to a true macro either.
They are more accurately "close focus" capabilities and the macro is more of a convenience feature.
Is it worthwhile? On some lenses definitely yes.
In the case of the Sigma 17-70mm, F2.8-4.5 DC Macro, the close focus is almost half-life-sized and pretty good quality so yes, it is a benefit.
These zoom lenses marked "macro" are more marketing than true macro. They do not approach true 1:1 macro magnifications and are probably not optically equal to a true macro either.
They are more accurately "close focus" capabilities and the macro is more of a convenience feature.
Is it worthwhile? On some lenses definitely yes.
In the case of the Sigma 17-70mm, F2.8-4.5 DC Macro, the close focus is almost half-life-sized and pretty good quality so yes, it is a benefit.
Thanks, Ziggy. I'm still a little confused about those ratios (1:whatever other number). But I read about how the marketing aspects of labeling a not-exactly-a-macro as being a macro. It's good to hear that you've found the Sigma to be pretty good.
My recent Rust shoots (last two) at Call of the Rust! Three takes on a Manhole Cover were done with the 'Macro' part of my Sigma 70-300, 4-5.6 Lens. right handy. My other walk around is the 24-135, no Macro!
Don
Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook.
Thanks, Ziggy. I'm still a little confused about those ratios (1:whatever other number). ...
The 1:1 ratio means that the subject is the same as the image size formed on the image plane. In other words, on a full-frame imager, a 24mm object (a US or Canadian quarter for instance) would fill the vertical portion of the frame in landscape orientation. On a crop 1.5x/1.6x camera the same object should fill the horizontal portion at 1:1.
A lens capable of 1:2 is half-life-size and so forth. The Canon MP-E 65mm, Macro lens is capable of 5:1, sometimes called 5x or 5 times life-size.
... It's good to hear that you've found the Sigma to be pretty good.
I don't own that lens, but I nearly bought it at one time and I have been "tracking" it since it was introduced.
Enough other actual owners have reported consistently good things about it that I don't hesitate to recommend it. It does has one particular trait that you should be aware of; at 17mm and wide open the corners get soft a little too quickly for my taste, and that is a commonly used focal length for me and I would want to use it wide open, so I decided against the lens. (I had preciously purchased the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX (non-macro).)
I'm actually glad I waited for the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM which is a good lens wide open at every focal length. It's a lot of money but if you need the performance at f2.8, it's worth it.
Comments
Do you mean a lens with macro capabilities or a dedicated macro lens?
My main walk-about lens is the Tamron 28-75 macro. It's not a dedicated macro lens but can be used for macros (1:3.9). I find this very useful. I can go from regular shots to closeups with the same lens.
Because that someone wants to shoot macro and/or enjoys the close focusing
abilities of macro lenses. Medium telephoto lenses like a 100mm/2.8 macro
are also great for kandid shots in public places.
― Edward Weston
I guess a lens with a macro capability, more so than a dedicated macro. For example, the Sigma 17-70. It's identified as a macro lens. So would it function just like a normal 17-70 lens, but also allow you to shoot macro shots? When would a normal 17-70 not enabled you to shoot macro?
There is a minimum focus distance on each lens. The macro lens can focus within inches and the others maybe 18 incues to 3 feet to 6 feet or more...
Macro lenses don't always focus as fast as regular lenses. For portraits they are wonderful
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
These zoom lenses marked "macro" are more marketing than true macro. They do not approach true 1:1 macro magnifications and are probably not optically equal to a true macro either.
They are more accurately "close focus" capabilities and the macro is more of a convenience feature.
Is it worthwhile? On some lenses definitely yes.
In the case of the Sigma 17-70mm, F2.8-4.5 DC Macro, the close focus is almost half-life-sized and pretty good quality so yes, it is a benefit.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks, Ziggy. I'm still a little confused about those ratios (1:whatever other number). But I read about how the marketing aspects of labeling a not-exactly-a-macro as being a macro. It's good to hear that you've found the Sigma to be pretty good.
Don
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
The 1:1 ratio means that the subject is the same as the image size formed on the image plane. In other words, on a full-frame imager, a 24mm object (a US or Canadian quarter for instance) would fill the vertical portion of the frame in landscape orientation. On a crop 1.5x/1.6x camera the same object should fill the horizontal portion at 1:1.
A lens capable of 1:2 is half-life-size and so forth. The Canon MP-E 65mm, Macro lens is capable of 5:1, sometimes called 5x or 5 times life-size.
I don't own that lens, but I nearly bought it at one time and I have been "tracking" it since it was introduced.
Enough other actual owners have reported consistently good things about it that I don't hesitate to recommend it. It does has one particular trait that you should be aware of; at 17mm and wide open the corners get soft a little too quickly for my taste, and that is a commonly used focal length for me and I would want to use it wide open, so I decided against the lens. (I had preciously purchased the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX (non-macro).)
I'm actually glad I waited for the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM which is a good lens wide open at every focal length. It's a lot of money but if you need the performance at f2.8, it's worth it.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums