02-24-2011, 12:51 PM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
From my own experience 50mm 1.8 is bloody sharp at apertures below 2.8, I doubt the 60mm micro would be sharper.
The only issue I had with this lens (not revelant in this case) - the minimum focusing distance of around 0.5m, which might be annoying in some situations. Can be 'sort of' fixed with $5 reversal ring, lol <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
From my own experience 50mm 1.8 is bloody sharp at apertures below 2.8, I doubt the 60mm micro would be sharper.
The only issue I had with this lens (not revelant in this case) - the minimum focusing distance of around 0.5m, which might be annoying in some situations. Can be 'sort of' fixed with $5 reversal ring, lol <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />