We have a Pentax F 50mm f2.8 macro, and it is without
a doubt the sharpest lens here, although we don't have
any * or limited lenses to compare it to.
I'd say the main use for such a short focal length
macro would be for copying flat art, documents, other
photos, etc.
It's seen little use in the
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Matti Etelapera wrote:
is the SMC-A 50mm f:2.8 Macro any good? Opinions?
http://stans-photography.info/
And what is the going price of the lens?
I would trawl the retailers' websites and monitor ebay. I would also
search the PDML archive, just in case.
HTH,
Kostas
Matti,
It's a good lens that might go for $150 if you were patient.
A 50mm Macro means you will get quite close to your subjects.
You can use it as a walking-around-lens, but you will notice the slower f2.8.
I've got an old PUG shot that I did with it.
Look under Bob Sullivan for a tulip in a
Actually, 50mm macro lenses were intended as copy lenses. Very good on the copy
stand. Not so good for things in the real world. 100mm is great for things that
are not shy like flowers. For shy things like insects a 200mm macro is better.
Of course, like in all real life situations, you make do
It's a good lens that might go for $150 if you were patient.
A 50mm Macro means you will get quite close to your subjects.
You can use it as a walking-around-lens, but you will notice
the slower f2.8.
Ditto, dito, and ditto.
It has the reputation of being an excellent macro lens.
Seems
[I sent this post a few hours ago, and I still haven't seen it come
back, so I'm trying it again - I apologize if there ends up being
two of these.]
It's a good lens that might go for $150 if you were patient.
A 50mm Macro means you will get quite close to your subjects.
You can use it as a
Get your apology ready, Fred! g
keith whaley
Fred wrote:
[I sent this post a few hours ago, and I still haven't seen it come
back, so I'm trying it again - I apologize if there ends up being
two of these.]
It's a good lens that might go for $150 if you were patient.
A 50mm Macro
On 22 Jan 2004 at 13:21, graywolf wrote:
Actually, 50mm macro lenses were intended as copy lenses. Very good on the copy
stand. Not so good for things in the real world. 100mm is great for things that
are not shy like flowers. For shy things like insects a 200mm macro is better.
Of course,
On 22 Jan 2004 at 18:12, graywolf wrote:
Wasn't referring to the sharpness, Rob. Was referring to the convenience of the
focal length.
I have 50, 125 and 200mm macro lenses and I work with shy bugs (and some not so
shy) using all of them. However I prefer the 50 a lot of the time though due
9 matches
Mail list logo
