Cheers
Shaun
Mishka wrote:
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
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Shaun Canning
P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA,
6714, Australia.
m: 0400 204536
http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________
