Shel, I've done butterflies with a pair of LX's, one with the A100/2.8 Macro and one with the M100/2.8 and an extension tube. The results were quite satisfactory with the M100/2.8 and the tube, but not up to the quality of the A100/2.8 Macro. The extra detail was visible on the Macro's slides. Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:41:07 -0500, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
