Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

groovyone · 07-18-2011, 02:14 PM

You are paying for the larger aperture and the glass quality may be higher, although macros are obviously very sharp. Different tools for different jobs.

jfoureyes · 07-18-2011, 05:50 PM

With a "macro" lens you can focus 1:1 magnification without extension. The extension is built into the lens... with non macro lenses you need to add extension to get to 1:1.

haring · 07-18-2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curtis Cunningham

Is a dedicated macro lens better than an equivalent focal length on a regular zoom lens? If so, why?

Is there an appreciable IQ difference in the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS lens VS the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 lens to justify the increased cost?

I don't think so. I think they have used the same lens elements.

ttruelove · 07-19-2011, 04:03 PM

I've used the Canon 100mm IS Macro on portrait shoots and weddings and I can say the lens is fantastic. This gem's actually my wife's and it never leaves her camera. She uses it almost religiously at weddings. Ring shots are great with it and the background blur on portraits is beautiful.

kenw · 07-19-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haring

I don't think so. I think they have used the same lens elements.

according to B+H, the IS has more actual elements. This may or may not be strictly related to the IS, but technically they are optically different at least in that regard.

kenw · 07-19-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curtis Cunningham

Is a dedicated macro lens better than an equivalent focal length on a regular zoom lens? If so, why?

basically the prime (macro or not) is totally optimized for a single focal length and no compromises need to be made by the designers. A macro is further specialization that would only be more compromised if it were also a zoom lens.

A zoom has to be optimized for the entire range, and often the results are that while you get very good results they aren't always the absolute BEST that could be had if they were only concerned with (example) 100mm instead of 70mm thru 200mm. In many cases the differences are minor, so it is a case of perception and need.

The zoom will almost always be more useful to the average shooter, however if/when you feel you can justify the added expense of a dedicated lens such as a macro, it is a decision made on your needs and the situations you shoot in.

Another difference is that primes are usually 'faster' than zooms, in most cases faster glass is a huge benefit. (there are exceptions of course). Dedicated macros will almost always have a closer focusing distance than non-macro lenses, too.

Can a zoom be "as good as" a prime? It totally depends on your definition of "as good as"....coupled with your definition of "painfully expensive"....

venchka · 07-19-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

Interesting....So we pay much more for the fast prime but the zoom/magnification factor is the same...

There is no "zoom" in fixed focal length (prime) lenses. Start and end at whatever focal length is engraved on the front ring. What does vary is minimum focus distance, overall size and maximum aperture.
In the Canon catalog there are 3 100mm fixed focal length lenses:
100/2.0 Small. Light. Largest maximum aperture of the 3. Longest minimum focus distance.
100/2.8 Macro. Larger than the 2.0. Smaller maximum aperture. Lifesize (1:1) reproduction without extra tubes. Coninuous focus from infinity to lifesize. And. If it is a true macro lens, it has optical characteristics tailored to close up work in the range of 1:5 to 1:1.
100/2.8/L/IS Macro. More expensive than #2. IS-possible advantage. L factor-worht the money? Maybe. Maybe not. One way to find out: Careful, controlled testing with the 100/2.8.

Probably more than you wanted to know. Macro lenses are a special breed. Assuming they are a true macro formula and not just a longer focusing mount.