In my experience, none of the fast 50mm normal lenses are geometrically as linear when compared to 50mm dedicated macro lenses. this can be important at times and no matter what f-stop you shoot at it wont go away. Nowadays though you CAN correct a lot of that distortion stuff in post processing but if you dont want to bother with it at all and you do a lot of macro than a true macro is the way to go for better geometry and saved labor. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 .... Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb > Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, > get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension > tubes, it will probably serve you better > as general purpose equipemnt than a > slow 50mm macro lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
