Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

  1. #1
    Member akszaksz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toa Payoh, Singapore
    Posts
    1,200

    Default Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    know that macro lens can enable you to take a shot really damn close-up with 1:1.

    just curious about can we use macro lens like any macro lens to shoot normal portrait, landscape shots?

    for e.g AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD Macro
    & any other AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD Non-Macro
    http://www.akkuaphotography.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johor Bahru, Malaysia
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    u can
    Stirring up emotions with pics - cyliew

  3. #3

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    For the macro lens, you can shoot closer to your object. If you are shooting portrait, you can use it like a normal non macro lens. Deselect the macro range so that the focusing would not go to the macro range.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,350

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    If you want to, sure you can.

    You can even shoot macro with any lens.

  5. #5
    Member akszaksz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toa Payoh, Singapore
    Posts
    1,200

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by aspenx View Post
    If you want to, sure you can.

    You can even shoot macro with any lens.


    but i tried using normal lens, i cant get too close to the object. at least footstep away...
    http://www.akkuaphotography.com

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johor Bahru, Malaysia
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    it depends on the min focusin distance of ur len...

    hmmm...say u hv a tele len, u zoom in on a nearby object and snap a close-up pic...is it consider marco?
    Stirring up emotions with pics - cyliew

  7. #7

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by akszaksz View Post
    but i tried using normal lens, i cant get too close to the object. at least footstep away...
    You can try getting a Raynox to compliment your 50mm.
    Can get quite good macro shots with this combo.
    Used to have a Raynox DCR250 with my 50mm prime.
    Min focus becomes approx. 12cm.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    though not just any macro lens, those specialised ones only can focus in the macro range ie. MP-E 65mm 1-5x

  9. #9
    Member akszaksz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toa Payoh, Singapore
    Posts
    1,200

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by J-Chan View Post
    though not just any macro lens, those specialised ones only can focus in the macro range ie. MP-E 65mm 1-5x
    ya, i just read something about that... the result was magnificent...
    http://www.akkuaphotography.com

  10. #10
    Member akszaksz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toa Payoh, Singapore
    Posts
    1,200

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by .Hack View Post
    You can try getting a Raynox to compliment your 50mm.
    Can get quite good macro shots with this combo.
    Used to have a Raynox DCR250 with my 50mm prime.
    Min focus becomes approx. 12cm.
    any idea how much it costs?
    Thanks~!


    btw, i saw fellow CSer selling macro filters. are they useful?
    Last edited by akszaksz; 1st December 2009 at 04:42 PM.
    http://www.akkuaphotography.com

  11. #11

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by akszaksz View Post
    any idea how much it costs?
    Thanks~!


    btw, i saw fellow CSer selling macro filters. are they useful?
    The Raynox DCR250 will cost $120 new.
    As for macro filters extension tubes etc., i still prefer the Raynox.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    im also wondering the same thing.. i have identical setup as TS.. and im looking for a longer telephoto zoom lens.. something in the range of 55-250/70-300mm etc.. and im also interested in doing macro photography.. wondering if i should look out for a macro zoom lens, if it can give same quality pics for landscape and other uses etc
    Check out my blog: pixelogist.me

  13. #13

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    macro lenses are great not just for macro but for portraits as well..
    i've a canon 100mm f2.8 macro.
    damn good portrait lenses. of course the focusing is the best at the macro range.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    sorry, noob here.

    if i want to shoot some onstage...but i am a distance to the stage, what type of lens to use huh so i can take a close up of the person's face clearly? very noob...heh

  15. #15

    Default Re: Macro Lens VS Normal Lens

    those that are eg. sigma 70-300 macro, may not be true macro... it may be just 1:3 (object is 1/3 life size). this is normally good enough for normal shots though, unless you like super super macro.

    wrt to filters/extention tubes, i personally think they're a good way to start macro. i used to think i liked macro a lot, but after i used my filter a few times i realised that macro shots were getting boring. might be worth considering this, as a 'true' macro lens is very expensive (compared to a cheap filter). i use a fixed 52mm +4 diopter, but the raynox 250 has the benefit of fitting a variety of lens thread sizes.

    sleven: you can use any tele lens (eg. 200mm and above) depending on the distance from the stage, preferably with VR/OS/IS, as the lighting is unlikely to be bright enough for good handhelds otherwise

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •