Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Most of them are f2.8 ... so, you have the speed, for a start. Some are even better (say, f2) ... plus, you can get down to 1:1 whenever you want. Right? Make sense?

easy8

I love the nikon 60 mm macro for pet shoots. Tack sharp an pets get close sometimes and it still focuses

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Macro lenses are not as well corrected for focusing at a distance as are normal lenses, but that being said, you probably will not notice the difference in most cases.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

I have a 105mm Sigma macro on a 60D. So that's almost comparable to 170mm telephoto. So, for me, it's a NO! But have gone out with it as the sole lens on the camera for a little macro exercise and a landscape or two. I used to hear the term - WALK TO ZOOM - but not heard it for many a year now, probably because of the no. and range of zooms available and the increased optical quality they now have.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

My Canon 100 2.8 non USM Macro is equiv. to a 160 on my 60D and is WONDERFUL as a dog chaser... Sharp as my L and gives me the reach to not have to be on top the animals in the yard; 160 equiv. as a Macro gives me that extra working distance.... a good example where an FX lens does the job on a DX body... IMHO , having both a DX and FX body gives you a lot of options with FX lenses.

mrpentaxk5ii

Again it depends on what you photograph and the focal length, you can get a macro from around 35mm to well over 100mm. My first prime lens was a 50mm Pentax F-2.8, after using it for a while I found the lens worked well, but on a APSC Pentax camera I wanted a faster lens with a shallower DOF, that's why I picked up the Pentax 55mm DA* F-1.4. There is such a difference with this lens for DOF and speed indoors.

Mark Bski Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle

I use a Nikon 24-85. It's not a macro, but does have a near focus of about 16 inches.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Over time I realized that "zooming with zoom lens" affects framing only, while so-called "zoom with feet" chains perspective to framing. I want to pick framing and perspective separately, so l have become a real fan of zoom lenses.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

There are differences between a macro lens and an ordinary lens. Common lenses focus on a curved field. Macro lenses focus on a flat field.

As a result I only use macro lenses for macro work. I have a few, a 60 mm f2.8, a 105 mm f2.8, a 150 mm f2.8, a 180 mm f2.8 and a 200 mm f4. The one I select depends on the working distance I need for the subject at hand. Among these my favourite is the 150 mm f2.8 and in those moments when it's kind of heavy I will switch to my 105 m f2.8.

I use the macro lenses only for macro taking advantage of the flat field.

I use all the other lenses I own for landscapes, portraits etc.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

John, I have the EOS 60D, too - fine camera ... but I normally use a Tokina 16.5-135 AT-X on it. I also have a Tamron SP 60 f2 Macro, which I use on it, occasionally.

I also have the Sigma EX 105 OS HSM Macro - a superb lens. However, I use it, daily - on my Sony a77 II ... as my "normal" lens for that camera. It rocks!!!!

Of course, the DZ on the Sony gives me up to 4x - so, in theory - my total FL, when using it, is 672mm !!! ... CIZ (2x - like a multiplier) gives me 336mm.

I compare my results with those from AP-Zs ... and the Sigma tops everything I have!!! ... So, personally, for me ... the 105 Macro is a win-win!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

This is on an FX, Easy, or a DX?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

It depends on the kind of photography you do, whether or not you are a stickler for sharpness at all focus ranges and distances and the degree of enlargement you routinely need to address in your work and, of course you budget for purchasing equipment. We know that good macro lenses are designed to perform exceptionally well at closup distances and will render great detail in small objects and subjects. We also know that they are capable of close up focusing without the addition of extension tubes or bellows or supplementary diopter lenses and we can create 1:1 or greater magnification ratios with ease of operation. Many of theses lenses, however, do not perform quite as well at as their general purpose counterparts at longer distances. The deficits they may have is sharpness may not be significant enough to worry about if you only confine you viewing to smaller monitor screens or small or moderately enlarged prints but may be more prevalent in larger images on a screen or print.

For photographers starting out on a limited budget, selecting a macro as a general purpose lens would be wise if a great deal of the photography that the gear is intended for involves close up work of highly detailed objects like flowers, insects, jewelry, coins, smsll electronic components etc. Macros also work well for dramatic close up portrait studies, portraits of pets and small children.

For landscapes, architectural subjects, 3/4, full length and group portraiture, street photography and photojournalism, as examples, I am not saying that a macro will produce images of unacceptable acutance but a high quality normal lens will be better in terms of sharpness and minimization of various aberrations that may be present.

i found this to be the case, over the years, with my digital gear, and film equipment of various formats. The only exception I experienced is a 140mm macro lens I have for my Mamiya RZ67 system. It has some kind of floating element adjustment that corrects the lens for various distances.

In my commercial work, there are many demands for extremely high resolution for greater degrees of enlargement and critical image quality for lithographic reproduction so I have to select my lenses usage to accommodate theses requirements. For much of my studio work, I have to stick with apo-quality prime lenses. For my own personal work, I am quite comfortable with macros, and zooms for general stuff.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

No!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Toby ... do you have specific numbers on this, or it is so far different for all Macros - a generalization is not possible?

What's involved in "corrected distance focusing" anyway, Toby?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Why not, S?