Gary Russell wrote:
> Here's kind of a beginner question...or maybe a 'retro' one for someone with
> a couple years experience; but are macro lenses at a disadvantage when used
> for portraiture, landscape or other types of subject other than just macro?
>
> For instance, would the new EF 100 f/2.8 Macro USM, which I'm thinking
> about, work out for things other than bugs, flower pistils, and other tiny
> stuff? Could I also do a nice 100mm portrait shot of the kid? The reason I
> ask is I've heard that macro lenses' optics are constructed so as to give a
> flatter or more comprehensive in-focus area or something like that. Anyway
> it's alleged that a more distant subject will not work out as well as with
> normal lenses, and the background (bokeh) is very poor.
>
> Thanks for any clarification on this.
>
> Gary Russell
Gary,
The only potential problem I have ever heard of using the 100mm macro for
portraits is that the image may be a bit too sharp for portraiture . Some time
back there was a long, and at times humorous, thread on overcoming this
sharpness. It ran from vaseline to nylon hosiery on the front of the lens to
soften the image.
As far as the bokeh, since macro lenses have very shallow depth of field when
shooting close up it seems to me that bokeh should not be a problem. (IMHO)
As far as the flat stuff, a true macro lens is a flat field lens. That means
that when shooting a flat object in macro, the entire image will be sharp. I
have never heard that it will flatten an image.
Bob
--
//////
( 0 0 )
-73 de Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have any film.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
