It depends upon what you are looking to photograph. A longer lens will give you more working distance and better perspective for three dimensional objects. A short lens will give you more magnification with less extension, but DoF becomes razor thin very very quickly and working distance disappears.
Once upon a time when I had Nikon 35mm SLRs, I did most macros with a Nikkor 85/2 AI-S fitted onto an extension tube, then picked up a MicroNikkor 200mm f/4 AI-S ED-IF lens for more working distance on 3D stuff like bugs. Now, with the *istDS, I found a Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro at a reasonable price. It works well and has nice imaging qualities. I also picked up a set of extension tubes which I'll use with the FA135/2.8 for more 3D stuff I understand the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro gives the Pentax D-FA100mm f/2.8 a good run for its money on quality. Godfrey --- Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm looking to buy a macro lens, again. Used to have one but > now > anymore. Long story. Which lens do you like to use most often > for > macro pics, the 50mm or the 100mm? I lean a little towards the > 50mm > since it will be cheaper, however, having the extra reach > might be > useful. I will be using the lens on a digital and film bodies > if it > makes a difference. > > Thanks, > Chad > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
