i vaguely remember a discussion here some time ago, and i believe the consensus was that "macro" lenses are optimized for close distances, whereas "normal" lenses -- for infinity (or near-infinity, for macro purposes)
flatness of field is also an issue. best, mishka On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:30:13 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The macro gods have been very, very good to me, and I have a couple of fine > Pentax lenses. While preparing to do a close-up of a three dimensional > object the thought crossed my mind that a macro lens is best suited for > flat objects, like stamps and documents, rather than something with greater > depth like the small toy car I was photographing. Using the A100/2.8 macro > and the K105/2.8 on the same subject, there didn't seem to be any > observable difference between the two photos. > > So, what do the macro and close-up gurus have to say about this? Under > what circumstances would a macro lens be the better choice, and when might > an ordinary lens be a better option? > > > Shel > >
