If perspective is an issue---this implies that the subject is not flat. If
the subject is not flat
then using a lens specially corrected for flatness of field -- the feature of a
dedecated macro lense
is not important. This implies that using a standard prime lense is
acceptable for this endeavor.
Dan Scott wrote:
> >tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Jan van Wijk wrote regarding 50mm vs 100mm macros:
> >>
> >>
> >> I would say there is not much difference optically, they are both pretty
> >>sharp
> >> and have enough contrast as well. The perspective and distance to your
> >> object is different of course because of the doubled focus-length.
> >>
> >
> >I think that's a pretty important point. Most people choose a 100mm for
> >close-ups, but the 50mm can give you a unique perspective. I have both,
> >and wouldn't want to part with either.
> >
> >That's the decision I would make first: 50mm or 100mm?
> >
> >tv
>
> I like the wider perspective in macros too, though I currently only own the
> FA100/2.8. What I really wish Pentax had was a wide angle macro, maybe
> around 28mm or 35mm. I think the perspective would be worth the tradeoff in
> working distance.
>
> Dan Scott
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
