It's good I had OM-D and a $1000 macro lens...

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
gardenersassistant Senior Member • Posts: 2,986
Re: It's odd..

helimech wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

Sometimes you really need expensive stuff and there's no way around it, but most of the time people don't know what they need and ignorance can be costly. For instance, a huge number of people believe that you need autofocus for macro or that you need a fast lens for landscapes, while in fact macro is completely MF business and landscapes are done stopped down on a tripod, and it's not that you don't really need a fast lens, but a fast lens would in fact produce inferior results. If you find something that is sharp from f/5.6 on, it will work just as well as something ten times more expensive that starts at f/1.4 or f/2.8. Also, for landscapes you don't need autofocus, manual is in fact more accurate if you can get 100% magnification. If you can pair a great sensor with a manual focus lens that is well designed and manufactured, with a little work and patience you can usually far exceed the results usually produced by the latest and greatest AF gear.

Listen it is just as wrong to say "you need AF for macro" as it is to say "macro is completely MF". Neither is true I use both and both have there advantages.

+1.

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