WaltR

I have a 90mm Macro Prime.

I presume that its design to focus relatively near, and its special designation “macro”, means that I give up something on the other end, for distant objects? What do I lose with a macro?

Or, does it only mean that it is a more sophisticated design and is going to cost a little more?

I have had several macros over the years and have never noticed anything different except the near focus.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A macro lens is a special type of camera lens that has the ability to work with very short focusing distances, taking sharp images of very small subjects. A true macro lens has a magnification ratio of 1:1 (or greater).

Consider google such as: what makes a macro lens

BTW - the 'macro' branding on the side of a lens doesn't magically give it a short focus distance, nor sharp images, nor a 1:1 magnification ratio. The word might indicate better performance in the roles, but still is rather unlikely to approximate the performance of dedicated macro lenses in a prime lens format.

Najataagihe

Usually, lens speed (smaller maximum aperture).

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

My understanding in addition to the above is that a macro lens also has a flat field of focus rather than spherical.

ELNikkor

My 55mm f2.8 AI Nikon Micro Nikkor, has a nice recessed flat-front glass lens that is sharp out to the corners. Even at infinity, the photos will blow up huge without loss of detail.

WaltR

Thanks all! I this this pretty much boils down to aperture and minimum focal distance. I'm not hearing of any loss otherwise. Except maybe, if I can get close, I must bend the knee! Thanks again.

BebuLamar

My Micro Nikkor 35mm f/3.5 pre AI while quite sharp at close up it's not as sharp as my 50mm f/1.4 at distance.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

A simple lens will focus on a curved external plane and project the image to a curved surface -- inside of a bowl. Film and sensors are flat. The lens becomes more complex as the designers work to overcome this and other problems. Complicating the flat field issue is the fact that it's variable over focus distance. Now shooting a landscape our requirement to have the lens focus on a flat plane and project a flat image is less strict than say photographing a printed circuit board. We always want the best of everything but lens design is a compromise. Another lens feature that we often desire is a large maximum aperture -- all lenses should be at least f/1.4, right? But increasing a lens maximum aperture makes it immensely more difficult to get the lens to do an excellent job elsewhere like projecting a flat image.

So a macro lens is one in which the designers have biased their design compromises toward best performance in the close-up to macro focusing range. You also want it to be f/1.4? Well you can't have it -- that was one of the design compromises. Are you going to lose shooting landscapes? No because your requirement for field flatness is less strict and you're not going to see a problem if the lens at long distances is beginning to focus on a slightly curved plane.

I have a 90mm macro lens with a maximum aperture of f/4. I understand why the designers didn't make it f/2.8 or f/2 and what I'm gaining in exchange. It's one of the best lenses I've ever owned.

WaltR

WaltR

My Fuji 110mm f2.0 non-macro will focus down to 3 ft. My Pentax 90mm f2.8 Macro will focus down to 1.4 ft.
Other than that, they both deliver about the same great quality everywhere. No real difference. But then, I am not shooting circuit boards.

therwol Loc: USA

I have that lens. The elements are fixed in place and fixed to focus in the macro range. In my experience, anything beyond about 2 meters becomes soft in the center. The 55mm f/2.8 that replaced it has a floating element for distance correction and is sharp to infinity. The consolation is that the earlier lens is unbelievably sharp up close.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

No loss.
You get at least infinity to 1:1.
F stop at f2.8 is fast (Look at all the posts saying f2.8 is fast) and very good sharpness from 1:1 to infinity.
So again no loss just a plus of adding 1:1 to your lens.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Macro lenses are specifically designed to give you a flatness of field, unlike most other lenses. They are specifically designed for close up work resulting in a 1:1 ratio. Some folks like to use their macro lenses for general shooting. Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

tcthome Loc: NJ

You can use it just like any other 90mm lens when not doing close up work. At very close distances (macro work), the depth of field is very shallow & you might want to use F22 as an example. But once you back away like for a eg. portrait photo, F8 is F8. Try close up macro & a Head shot & see the difference.

Canisdirus

A serious 1:1 macro/micro lens is about as versatile a lens that you can purchase...dollar for dollar.
You get great close up and usually a very sharp prime lens to boot.

Though I wouldn't be shooting at f/22 for anything other than creating lighting starbursts...too much diffraction in the image itself.