I want to have a good lens, or two if necessary, for both macro photography and portrait. I know that macro lenses can also function like regular lenses. So, I'm thinking that it maybe a waste of money to buy 2 lenses especially because macro lenses are very expensive. Do you think I'd better just buy a regular lens and use a diopter to shoot macro? Please advise. THANKS!
Unless you are planning on doing a lot of low-light, non-flash photography which calls for a very fast lens like a 50mm f1.4 the 50mm macro would be your best choice. Don't allow yourself to be mislead by someone extolling the virtues of an f1.4 lens for portraits. Since a 50mm lens on a 1.5 crop factor camera gives the angle of view of a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera you'll be several feet away from your portrait subject even for a head and shoulders shot. By going here:
[URL Truncated] and using the DOF Calculator you can see the depth of field you can expect with a 50mm lens on, say, a Nikon D90.
50mm @ f2.8 focused at 10'-0'' your DOF is from 9'-4'' to 10'-9'' which means that anything from 0'-8'' in front of your subject to 0'-9'' behind it will be in focus. This amount of depth of field would be very suitable for a portrait.
50mm @ f2.8 focused to 5'-0'' your DOF is from 4'-10'' to 5'-2'' which means that anything from 0'-2'' in front of your subject to 0'-2'' behind it will be in focus. So if you focused on your subject's eyes from 5'-0'' its possible the tip of their nose will be out of focus.
How important is macro photography to you? Is it so important you want an expensive dedicated macro lens? Are you a pro or a hobbyist? I assume hobbyist or you wouldn't be asking this question. Are you planning to have your photos professionally analyzed or critiqued?
The average person looking at a macro of a flower wont know if you shot it with a cheap diopter or an expensive macro lens unless you tell them. Not all dedicated lenses are created equal either. Some will have more distortion than others.
I can only speak for myself but as an amateur hobby photographer the first priority for me is how I personally like my photos. Others may or may not like them for their own reasons and Im perfectly fine with that. I shoot some macro but I don't concentrate on it. For my needs diopters are perfectly acceptable. Dedicated lenses are too expensive for my needs. Extension tubes are less expensive but still more bulk to carry around. The diopters are inexpensive and fit in a case which is easy to carry.
By choosing my lenses properly my diopters fit 2 of my lenses so I have a wide range of focal lengths to shoot macro with. Can you get close enough to a butterfly on a flower with a 50mm dedicated lens or will you scare him away? Using diopters on my 200mm lens I can fill the frame with the butterfly without having to get close enough to scare him away. Extension tubes would be even better for flexibility because they could be used with all lenses of your mount. I certainly don't want the expense of several focal length dedicated macro lenses.
No. For quality portraits, you'll need a large aperture like f/1.2, f/1.4 or at least f/1.8. Macro lenses hardly go that far so they would have different applications. Diopters do not even come close to the quality of a real macro lens. I suggest using a bellows or extension tubes instead with the regular 50mm to do macro if you can't afford the macro lens.
Answer by keerok on 07 Jan 2010 09:29:06
No comments:
Post a Comment