On 2005-02-14 14:23, Chad 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.
Give it a try first. Did you realize how close an object is to the front lense at 1:1? Far too close... 100 mm is reasonable for everything in between. For some moving objects - such as dragon flies - it may be difficult to come close. A Sigma 180/2.8 could be nice there. On the other hand it's difficult to get both DOF and short exposure times together. Apart from the original M & A 100/4.0, the AF version 100/4.0 (which is the same as Cosina/Phoenix/Soligor/...) is not too bad, but light and cheap. Personally, I'd like one of the 90/2.8 or 90/2.5 from Tokina/Tamron, too. I don't know about the real differences of their versions (apart from 1:2 vs. 1:1 for former versions) - I expect that all of them are excellent. > I will be using the lens on a digital and film bodies if it > makes a difference. The 50 mm still is too close - while the 100 mm will be on the far end then. Martin
