File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Noobish question here:

Will a macro lens do everything its standard counterpart will do + focus closely? I've been thinking about buying a 50mm macro instead of the standard 50mm prime.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDIGITALMAVICAMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2003:10:19 17:48:06Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashFlashFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height480
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I've heard that they're a bit less good than a standard lens at non-Macro distances. But if you're a n00b, you probably won't notice a difference.
>> Anonymous
Functionally it's fine to use a macro lens, but a 50mm macro lens will be slower and more expensive than a non-macro one.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
What he said.>>103437
It probably won't be quite as sharp as a regular 50mm lens at non-macro distances, but this will depend on the specific lens. That sigma you posted is, by all accounts, very, very close to being as sharp as a regular 50, to the point that you aren't really sacrificing image quality, just speed.
>> Anonymous
A macro lens is usually designed to provide best quality at close focus distances and narrow apertures (like f/8 or narrower), plus it needs to have precise manual focusing; AF speed and bokeh quality can be sacrificed.

A standard lens is usually designed to provide best quality across the frame when stopped down only a couple stops (or even wide open) and focused to infinity; also, AF speed and bokeh are more of an issue.

A portrait lens needs soft, pleasant bokeh and decent sharpness in the center of the frame; corner softness, AF speed and performance at narrow apertures all don't matter much.