can I use a Micro/Macro lens normally?

C

cherokee1111

Suspended / Banned
Messages
822
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been looking seriously at a Nikon 60mm AF-S but others I've asked say its very popular for underwater photography or macro photography- I dont do either, I wanted it for sharp family and general pics- am I barking up the wrong tree?
 
Just think of it as a 60mm lens that has the ability to also shoot macro, rather than as a macro lens.

That way you will look at the possibilities and uses you would have for it as a 'normal' lens with the added bonus of being able to shoot macro with it.
 
I can't tell you about that particular lens but can say that macro lenses also work fine as nomal primes too. My canon 100mm macro is super sharp and takes lovely people pics but is a touch too long on a 1.6 crop body for that purpose.
 
cherokee1111 said:
I've been looking seriously at a Nikon 60mm AF-S but others I've asked say its very popular for underwater photography or macro photography- I dont do either, I wanted it for sharp family and general pics- am I barking up the wrong tree?
Click to expand...

Short answer: You can use it for what you want.

Slightly longer answer: If you aren't using it for macro, you're paying for a feature for no real reason. Both in terms of cost, and usually macro ones are also a bit slower.
 
If its anything like a Canon af-s 60mm then its a bit of overkill for what you want to use it for, perfectly suitable though and offers the growing path to macro photography. Its a little heavy compared to say a standard 50mm (f1.8) lens and also a little slower (assuming its f2.5 or thereabouts) but for all practical purposes its an ideal lens. In some ways its better than a standard 50mm (certainly as far as a Canon is concerned which has better build quality albeit a more expensive). Not sure about Nikon macro/standard lens price comparison or build quality but I'm assuming they would be similar to Canon in that respect.
If you think you may want to do macro in the future then its a good lens, if not there are cheaper alternatives.

Matt
 
In general I find macro lenses to be really sharp so using the 60mm as a portrait lens would be perfect. However I personally find 60mm a bit short for head and shoulders shots on a full frame camera. If you're intending to shoot the 60mm on something like the D90 (cropped sensor) then I reckon you'll love it.
 
at warehouse express the 60mm afs ( f 2.8 ) is £398 and the 50 mm afs ( f 1.4 ) is £298 ,,,,if you dont ever intend to do macro work it may be worth considering the 50mm lens . hundred quid cheaper and two stops faster .
 
If you dont want it for macro, then the 1:1 magnification you get with these lenses adds a lot to the cost that you dont need. Most semi macro lenses are about 1:2 which means you can still shoot up close but not life size, and they cost much less than true 1:1 macro's.
 
AS has previously been stated the extra cost of buying a Macro lens makes it expensive as a lens per se, but if you have one in your arsenal then use it. If the cap fits as they say, wear it.
My Sigma 150 f/2.8 is a stunning mid telephoto lens and accepts a teleconverter very well too.
 
Well thanks people, great informative answers, def makes decisions easier.

Wonder why Arkady thinks I'm barking up the wrong tree? care to expand please? genuinly interested in your feedback....as you know;)
 
cherokee1111 said:
Well thanks people, great informative answers, def makes decisions easier.

Wonder why Arkady thinks I'm barking up the wrong tree? care to expand please? genuinly interested in your feedback....as you know;)
Click to expand...

eh?

:shrug:

I said 'yes'...
As in: "yes you can use it like a 'normal' lens"...
 
are you sure he wasnt reading something between the lines Rob ?? :lol:

oh you didnt write any lines ...
 
Arkady said:
eh?

:shrug:

I said 'yes'...
As in: "yes you can use it like a 'normal' lens"...
Click to expand...

The end of the first post ended with a question that the correct response to was the opposite of the one in the title.
 
I regularly use my AFS 105mm f2.8 as a standard 105mm prime. It is a VERY nice prime lens and f2.8 is still reasonably quick. When I bought it I just used it for macro but someone else asked this question and it had not occurred to me so I tried it.
 
Indeed, I used my 105mm VR for my mountain bike stuff for a long time, before I got the 70-200. It was spot on, and produced many many beautifully sharp shots.
 
The good thing with using macro lenses for portraits is you can really isolate part of the face rather than just getting full head shots. One of the things that frustrates me with lenses like the 84 1.4 is the long MFD. No such problem with a macro/micro lens :thumbs:
 
This was shot with the Canon 100mm macro lens. Perhaps not the best tool for the job, but OK at a pinch...

20100622_120250_9739_LR.jpg
 
I have been looking at macro lenses for a long time (I find it hard to be decisive!) and one thing that constantly comes up in reviews of the Tamron 90mm Macro is that it apparently makes a lovely portrait lens too.
 
I bought the Tamron 90mm to go on my D40. Wish i'd bought the Nikon 105mm vr instead though, as vr would have been worth the extra pennies for the long end when i use it as a telephoto. The quality is good when you get it, but it seems to have really poor focusing. Easily the worst of all my lenses. Wallows around like a drunk hippo on roller skates and 90% of the time can't even lock on someone 6ft away, on full or limit. Am in the process of sending it to be serviced so hopefully it's just a calibration issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top