Thank you Rob. May I then assume the true macro has a limited range, and will not go to infinity? I have used ordinary lenses that incorporate the lens motion to encompass a macro range, and do rather well, but have never owned a true macro lens. For me that would be an excess, as the poor thing would sit idle for weeks at a time. <g>
Thanks for the answer, keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 14 Aug 2002 at 4:22, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > Good morning, Peter, > > > > What distinction do you hang on the word "true," in "true macro." > > Must be a subtlety there that I'm not aware of. Or, more > > likely, I've forgotten it's accepted meaning. <g> > > Hi Keith, > > Of course I'm not Peter but I assume that he meant (as I read) as vs a > dedicated macro lens i.e. one specifically designed for close focus with a flat > focus field, excellent sharpness, great contrast and very little geometric > distortion? > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
