02-25-2011, 01:57 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens;
[/quote]
By "rich texture" you're talking about micro contrast then it has very little to do with a lens being macro or not. Only two things matter (equally): (1) high resolution and (2) lack of CA.
Almost all primes give more than good resolution when stopped down. But very few of them are "free" of CA.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
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]
Umm if you're coming to that conclusion by the link I gave you then I'm not too sure. What I said was, if the ordinary 50 1.8 @ f/11 is good at chart distances which are very close, it should perform even better at far distances. The AF-S 60 2.8 on the other hand, is optimised for close distances... so if it's not any better than the 50 1.8 at that relatively close distance for which it is optimised, I'm finding it difficult to see how it can be better or equal to the possibly infinity-optimised 50 1.8 at far distances.
GTW
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens;
[/quote]
By "rich texture" you're talking about micro contrast then it has very little to do with a lens being macro or not. Only two things matter (equally): (1) high resolution and (2) lack of CA.
Almost all primes give more than good resolution when stopped down. But very few of them are "free" of CA.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
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]
Umm if you're coming to that conclusion by the link I gave you then I'm not too sure. What I said was, if the ordinary 50 1.8 @ f/11 is good at chart distances which are very close, it should perform even better at far distances. The AF-S 60 2.8 on the other hand, is optimised for close distances... so if it's not any better than the 50 1.8 at that relatively close distance for which it is optimised, I'm finding it difficult to see how it can be better or equal to the possibly infinity-optimised 50 1.8 at far distances.
GTW