2
|
Do you need 1:1?
In reply to 4thnebula,
7 months ago
|
4thnebula wrote:
I have always found this to be a strange situation. For copy work (which for me takes a "normal sized lens" which means a 60mm macro) I find the lack of a FF 60mm lens to be a very odd missing in the Canon EF lens lineup. Canon has been around a long time and the number of EF lenses is very large. However, no normal sized macro. I don't consider the 50mm f2.5 a true macro. In addition, it is a pretty average IQ quality lens. Clearly not up to modern quality standards for a macro and is not 1:1 on top of that. When I get a FF camera it will be for copy work of 2D artwork (oil paintings and drawings). The 100mm macro would be too long of a lens. If a got a Canon FF I would prefer not to have to go to a third party to get a macro.
Do you need 1:1 macro for your work? That is, do you ever take photos of paintings or drawings (or details) smaller than 7cm wide? If you do, you probably should be using a longer focal length (at least 100mm), otherwise the working distance will be very, very short, which will be a problem for lighting. If you don't, the 50mm f/2.5 1:2 is an excellent choice: cheap and about as sharp as it gets once stopped down to f/5.6, with great contrast and no distortion.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 2 | ||
| 7 months ago | 2 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 1 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 1 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
