Focal lengths of macro lenses

[BW man]

I am looking into macro lenses, which I have not used before, and trying to understand relative merits of different focal lengths. I read in more than one place that longer (60 or 100) macro lenses also double as great portrait lenses. This begs a question: assuming one is not interested in serious telephoto, why buy non-macro lenses at all? Thank you all in advance!

 

[confyushis]

assuming one is not interested in serious telephoto, why buy non-macro lenses at all?

take a look at canon's macro lens line-up ...

• 50mm f/2.5
• 60mm f/2.8
• 65mm f/2.8 (manual focus only)
• 100mm f/2.8
• 100mm f/2.8 IS
• 180mm f/3.5

1. there are no focal lengths less than 50mm ... what happens to the people who want wide angle shots?
2. there are no apertures wider than f/2.5 ... what happens to the people who want f/2 or wider apertures for more subject isolation?
3. one person not being interested in telephoto doesn't translate in the marketplace ... many people want "zoom" ... many people want lots of "zoom" ... that's why they make the typical 55-250 "kit" lens ... that's why they make 60x "zoom" bridge cameras ... that's why the tamron 150-600 is the new "it" lens at "only" $1100 ...

people buy non-macro lenses because this limited line-up of 6 lenses does not do everything ... it does not zoom ... it does not do low-light (flash needed) ... it does not do telephoto ... it does not do wide angle ... it does not have image stabilization (tripod needed) ...

but if you can do all you need with just these macro lenses, go for it and more power to you ...

hope this helps ...

 

[yardcoyote]

I have an excellent 35mm macro lens (the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited), which I use as an all purpose walk around lens on my crop sensor camera. If you have any interest at all in shooting small things, a normal length macro is great for general shooting. I can go from subjects like cars and architectural details to subjects like flowers and bugs more or less instantly.

I think anyone who loves primes should have at least one macro. 60mm on a crop sensor would be another excellent FL for a useful all purpose macro that could indeed double as a portrait lens, particularly for environmental style portraits. It may not have a large enough maximum aperture to completely blur out the background for a traditional portrait effect.

 

[MarshallG]

I bought a 50mm f/1.4 for indoor photography, primarily concerts and stage performances. In these venues, a camera is allowed but flash is forbidden. Additionally, sometimes you want the big aperture for the bokeh, but f/2.8 should be ok.

 

[ARShutterbug]

The focal length affects the working distance. Macro lenses can be used for telephoto work, but some potential problems include:

Focusing priority is not near Infinity, so odd inaccuracies can occur

Auto-focus is slow to respond at Infinity focusing distances

No zoom option

--

http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug

 

[BW man]

Thank you all for your replies. Very helpful. My takeaway from them is:

On a very basic level, a 50mm macro can indeed be used just like a 50mm non-macro in that it will have the same angle of view, the same depth of field at a particular aperture, etc.

The two main differences are: the specialized optics design means that a macro will produce aberrations if pointed at a distant subject; and macros are not made as fast (2.5 seems to be the best available)

Thanks again!

 

[Mystery member]

Thank you all for your replies. Very helpful. My takeaway from them is:

On a very basic level, a 50mm macro can indeed be used just like a 50mm non-macro in that it will have the same angle of view, the same depth of field at a particular aperture, etc.

The two main differences are: the specialized optics design means that a macro will produce aberrations if pointed at a distant subject; and macros are not made as fast (2.5 seems to be the best available)

No one said that you should expect aberrations near infinity with macro lenses. Turning the argument around, many photographers use short lenses with extension tubes for macro, and those lenses are then definitely operating outside their design parameters without major problems.

 

[yardcoyote]

Agreed. My faithful 35mm macro works just fine at infinity. One potential problem is overfocus-- when going from close focus to focusing on an object at a distance, the autofocus on a macro lens can seem to "miss" its focus point and go all the way out to the end, requiring you to refocus. This isn't a terrible issue, but it wastes time, makes a lot of noise and makes you feel like a total idiot.

Luckily there is a super easy solution. I got this tip from someone on the Pentax forum the day I ordered the lens, and I've been doing it all along. It should be equally applicable to lenses from other makers.

When changing between close range and distant range, manually focus the lens until you are "in the ballpark" of correct focus on the new subject. Not need to be exact, just get it close. Then half press the shutter button to tighten up the focus. Works great, and it's very quick if you are used to working with manual lenses. I actively enjoy doing this. It has a lot of play value.

And the only time my lens goes swooping out to the end of its focus is when I get absorbed in my work or forget what lens I have on or am in a hurry-- and forget to do it.

 

[GreenMountainGirl]

I am looking into macro lenses, which I have not used before, and trying to understand relative merits of different focal lengths. I read in more than one place that longer (60 or 100) macro lenses also double as great portrait lenses. This begs a question: assuming one is not interested in serious telephoto, why buy non-macro lenses at all? Thank you all in advance!

If your main concern is using macro lenses for other purposes, OP have already given good answers. However, I also thought you might be interested in the merits of different focal lengths specifically for macro use. The shorter focal lengths allow you to get very close to the subject, whereas the longer focal lengths require more distance from the subject. When shooting stationary objects, shorter works very well. When shooting insects it is generally better to be able to keep your distance. Both because they might fly away if you get too close, and because some when they feel threatened might sting. OP might have more in-depth understanding of the differences, but this is a general description.

 

[beagle1]

I am looking into macro lenses, which I have not used before, and trying to understand relative merits of different focal lengths. I read in more than one place that longer (60 or 100) macro lenses also double as great portrait lenses. This begs a question: assuming one is not interested in serious telephoto, why buy non-macro lenses at all? Thank you all in advance!

because those non-macro lens can have a larger aperture and focus faster, most 1:1 macro lens are f2.8

it's true, the macro lens can double as portrait lens

- Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro (non-di)

 

[l_d_allan]

yardcoyote wrote:
And the only time my lens goes swooping out to the end of its focus is when I get absorbed in my work or forget what lens I have on or am in a hurry-- and forget to do it.

Many macro lenses (and telephotos) have a "range limiter" to improve focus speed. Something like:

• Full range (can be slow with "hunting")
• 5' to infinity
• closest focus to 3'

Generally, I'd think the longer focal length for macro, the better. 100mm on a full-frame is a good compromise. (~ 60mm on crop).

I'd be inclined to use a macro extension tube for macro with a prime, rather than a screw-in filter.