Crunch time! - canon 50mm 3.5 macro or vivatar 90mm 2.8 macro?

Started Apr 3, 2010 | Discussions thread
degger
Contributing MemberPosts: 696
Like?
Re: Crunch time! - canon 50mm 3.5 macro or vivatar 90mm 2.8 macro?
In reply to ashatron, Apr 4, 2010

ashatron wrote:

Would do you think in terms of a tele lens (with diopter or extension) vs a dedicated macro lens?

It's basically all about one thing: convenience . If you want to walk about take some pictures, see a nice macro shot and want to instantly being able to shoot it nothing will beat a macro lens. However macro lenses are usually quite limited in focal length, optically slow and MF focusing will take more action on the users side as it's optimised for precise macro focusing. And good lenses are usually freakingly expensive, even legacy ones.

is a dedicated macro much better at the macro job?

Yes!

i suppose a bit part is the aperture...most teles dont have a low aperture do they?

They do but you want to have a lens that's optically perfect in the aperture range you'll be shooting in.

however if the raynox diopter cost £40, as opposed to £90 for a macro + adapter, its saying me some cash.

Well, you'll need a lens + adapter + raynox. That may or may not be cheaper than the macro lens + adapter. Anywhoo what this will buy you is flexibility and especially since you don't seem to be sure what you're getting at....

You'll likely find out very soon that a good tripod or at least monopod is a nice thing to
have for macro work.

Whatever route you'll go, I hope you'll soon have some results to show.

-- hide signature --

Servus, Daniel

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow