Jan van W. wrote:
> The only real disadvantage of macro-lenses is that they tend to be at least
> twice as expensive as non-macro lenses of the same focal-length.
That's true, but it's an advantage as well, since price is one of the two
biggest limitations that lens designers are burdened with (the other is
size, both total size and exit pupil size as determined by the lensmount).
Since macro lenses can cost more, the designers and manufacturers can build
more basic quality into them.
One of the great "sleepers" in photography is the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2
macro. It's a great normal lens that outperforms any other medium-speed
normal lens I've ever tried, including the Leica Summicrons. The reason this
is so is that an OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 normal lens sells for $140 and an OM
Zuiko 50mm f/2 macro sells for $640 (current B&H prices). That's 4.5X the
price. The extra $500 smackers they get for the thing gives them a lot of
freedom to make it mo' better.
Speaking of Leica, for a while it was recommending that R system users
consider the 60mm f/2.8 macro as a normal lens. The macro costs $1,440 as
opposed to $610 for the normal 50/2 Summicron-R (current Tri-State prices)
which is a difference of "only" 2.4X. The 60mm macro is a great lens, but
probably the reason it never caught on as a normal is not so much the price
but that fact that it's 10mm longer in focal-length and a stop slower than
an ordinary medium-speed normal.
The Zuiko macro never got its due. A shame. It's a killer lens, one of the
very best money can buy.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
