Traditionally "Macro" started at 1:2. lots of lenses that were only close focusing 1:4 were labeled as macro however.
Christian wrote: > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. >> > > I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses, > however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the > *ist D. > > >> Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not >> going >> to give you the same overall image quality >> as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make >> matters worse. >> > > The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon > doesn't say "macro" on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. > > >> When I say general purpose, its NOT my specific purpose >> or your specific purpose, its GENERAL PURPOSE >> (all around MACRO usage) where a macro lens would >> give better results than a NON MACRO >> lens would. I don't agree than 90-105mm and longer >> is a good general purpose macro lens focal length for APS. >> >> The original poster did not specify a specific >> usage so that is why I recommended a good general >> purpose MACRO focal length on APS , like the 50mm SMC-A MACRO lens. >> > > And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar > Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a > longer working distance is a better choice. > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
