From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I should add that it need not be a macro.
For portraits, probably best to avoid a macro. The focusing action of a macro is optimized more for close subjects than far. A 100mm macro takes just a slight turn to move the focus from infinity to a few feet away from the camera. Back when I had an M 100 f2.8, it took considerably more turning to achieve the same result. As a consequence, it's easier to accurately focus a regular lens on a subject several feet away than it is to use a macro at the same distance.
I don't have the M100 anymore, but for example, my manual focus Kiron 105mm macro goes from infinity to 3 feet in just un 1/4th of a turn (90 degrees of arc) of the focusing ring. By contrast, my Takumar 135 f2.5 (closest thing I have to a regular 100) takes over 3/4ths of a turn to get to it's minimum focus ing distance of 1.2 meters. When working with a person sitting 6-10 feet away, it can be a lot easier to focus with a regular lens than a macro.
I used to like ricoh lenses and still have a few around - I don't recall a 100mm prime, but they did make a 135 f2.8, and I think in the "A" version. But Ricoh's can be hard to come by.
I'd second the M100 f2.8 - I liked mine a lot, wish I had not sold it.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
