this is a worn out argument. Not all macro lenses are the same type of design. Every macro lens pentax made for example prior to the A series are poor performers at infinity and large apertures because the designers choose to optimize close range magnificaitons which is logical. Stopped down they are pretty good but not as good as general purpose lenses at long distances...
As for "indisputable proof", my burden isnt any greater than yours and is based on the simple concept that lenses that do less can do what little they do better that lenses that do more (prime vs zoom concept). T JCO -----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses On 13 Nov 2004 at 12:33, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > There is ZERO advantage to using macro lenses > at subject distances covered by normal lenses. > Actully there is usually a disadvantage, so using > a macro lens for non macro work makes no > sense and my comments were certainly not for that case! I find using macro lenses at non-macro distances most often more advantageous than not. I see (and test) no optical deficit for one (over regular lenses of comparable quality, FL and speed) and secondly I only have to lug a single lens for the FL to cover a multitude of shooting situations. I'd still like to see indisputable proof of just how inferior my zoomy zoom zoom type macros are over the old fixed lens designed macros in normal shooting situations. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
