Shel Belinkoff stopped playing with his cameras long enough to write: "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?" I don't claim to be a guru but I am an enthusiast. The major difference between the macro lenses and the non-macro lenses is that the macro lenses allow you to focus a lot closer. If you're far enough away from your subject that both lenses can focus then I wouldn't expect to see an appreciable difference in the images at f/8 or f/11. It might make for an interesting experiment. Tom Reese
