Seeking knowledgable lens answer (Page 2): Lenses can be optimized for near focusing or far focusing. Your macro lens will not perform as well as a non-macro resolving at infinity...

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Lenses can be optimized for near focusing or far focusing. Your macro lens will not perform as well as a non-macro resolving at infinity, with probably some spherical aberration overcorrection at a distance.

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

Not that it makes a great difference at this point, but from the perspective of the original Greek language Micro -meaning small or tiny- is the correct way to define these lenses, as in other terms derived from the same root, like microscope, micrometer, micron, micrograph, etc. Nikon has it right. If anything, macro- -meaning far or distant-should have been used as an alternative to tele.
Sarantis (a professor of Classical archaeology).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

kymarto wrote:

Lenses can be optimized for near focusing or far focusing. Your macro lens will not perform as well as a non-macro resolving at infinity, with probably some spherical aberration overcorrection at a distance.

You might try the EF 100mm f2.8 L.
No such problem.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ssymeono wrote:

Not that it makes a great difference at this point, but from the perspective of the original Greek language Micro -meaning small or tiny- is the correct way to define these lenses, as in other terms derived from the same root, like microscope, micrometer, micron, micrograph, etc. Nikon has it right. If anything, macro- -meaning far or distant-should have been used as an alternative to tele.
Sarantis (a professor of Classical archaeology).

Does anyone really care?
NO.
We care how it works.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

WaltR wrote:

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.

As mentioned, because the design of most more expensive "macro" lenses include more lens elements and a slower lens speed , these design elements are mostly what allow the lens to perform exceptionally well at infinity AND close up.
.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

WaltR wrote:

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.

Two things: First a prime macro lens will have better edge to edge sharpness and depending on the lens it may be an excellent lens for distance as well. I know a couple of photographers that use the Tokina 100mm macro lens as their portrait lens. For the money it is probably the best macro lens on the market. On the other hand, I recently purchased a macro lens that will only work at close distances. I also have a 28 to 300mm Nikon lens that will close focus at 12" at all focal lengths. If you photograph a flower at 300mm from 12" away it is doing a good imitation of a macro lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If you thought adding "knowledgable" to the title was going to provide more valid responses, you're obviously new here (and I see you are).

It reminds me of the TV commercial, "I may not be a doctor, but I play one on TV." People like to give their opinions on everything.

photoman43

I use all my macro lenses for regular non macro photography too because they all produce very sharp images. Sometimes they are too sharp!

My 55mm f2.8 Nikon macro is also a flat field lens and I use it a lot for landscapes because of that feature. I do not think my 105mm Nikon macro lens is flat field but I use it for nature photography as well as macro.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

imagemeister wrote:

As mentioned, because the design of most more expensive "macro" lenses include more lens elements and a slower lens speed , these design elements are mostly what allow the lens to perform exceptionally well at infinity AND close up.
.

JBRIII

Did anyone, other than maybe NASA, ever try curved sensor chips? I know they use to curve film for some astro cameras.

Canisdirus

JBRIII wrote:

Did anyone, other than maybe NASA, ever try curved sensor chips? I know they use to curve film for some astro cameras.

Sony has a patent filed already...been working on it for a long time.
Canon may be working on it as well...but Sony has the edge.

It will change photography forever...the next leap forward.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

Sony has a patent filed already...been working on it for a long time.
Canon may be working on it as well...but Sony has the edge.

It will change photography forever...the next leap forward.

And what happens to all the lenses out there?

Canisdirus

Architect1776 wrote:

And what happens to all the lenses out there?

Probably why you don't see it on the market yet...
More than likely it will begin in cellphones...
More good news for Micro format...

therwol Loc: USA

kymarto wrote:

Lenses can be optimized for near focusing or far focusing. Your macro lens will not perform as well as a non-macro resolving at infinity, with probably some spherical aberration overcorrection at a distance.

With floating elements, a macro lens can adjust to any distance.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

F stops, macros are slower lenses.