Using a macro lens for general photography. Thoughts?

[Jim Jones]

I found that Nikon macro lenses worked fine for distant shots. Using normal fast lenses for macro photography was often unsatisfactory. Probably the lenses that have taken more of my photos than any other are screw mount and bayonet mount Leitz's 50mm Summicrons. They were great for most photography. Unlike dedicated macro lenses, the screw mount version used with a Leitz boowum (spider legs) adapter has too much curvature of field for optimum macro photography. However, it may be the most convenient mass document copying device ever for any 35mm camera. It also looked neat in spy movies.

 

[Paul Howell]

There are trade offs of any normal lens design. Other than the Swiss Kern 50 1.7 and the knock off Chinon 50 1.7 in M42 mount macro, Macros are a stop slower, boka will be different, and depending on the age of lens and coating there can be different resulting contrast and color rendering. I typically use a normal mid range 1.9 to 1.4, which is the fast lens I have in 35mm. I use a 50 2.8 Sigma in Minolta Mount of 5 pin Minolta 100 A mount if I am shooting at the local Botanical Garden as I carry a tripod. If my intent to shoot all macro I use a bellows or a set of extension tubes and either a 100 or 50mm lens, sometimes a short zoom.

 

[Frank53]

Another nice Olympus macro lens that’s also good at infinity, is the 2.0 90mm.

 

[KerrKid]

Another nice Olympus macro lens that’s also good at infinity, is the 2.0 90mm.

Expensive, too. I guess that's relative, though.

 

[pdccamerqs]

I used a Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 macro as my normal for many years - great lens, albeit a little slow for a normal. A big bonus is the deeply recessed front element which obviates the need for a lens hood!

 

[dave olson]

I've got to second the post above. I love the versatility it provides. Granted the 2.8 isn't the fastest but then I would not use it in low-light situations. Then I'd reach for my 50 f1.2.

 

[xkaes]

I've got to second the post above. I love the versatility it provides. Granted the 2.8 isn't the fastest but then I would not use it in low-light situations. Then I'd reach for my 50 f1.2.

Thinking kinda, sorta along the same lines, some of the best close-up and even macro shots I've ever taken were with my Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 -- so I could get along with just one "normal".