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 (
You wrote:
>One question. What does the macro part of the lens do?
No lens has a `macro' part. Macro lenses are *designed* for close-up
work.
>I have a macro Tamron which I have never used (no
>adaptall yet), and am wondering.
Go get an adapter and enter the `macro' world. Enjoy!
--
http://memb
It smells and attracts flies if you leave it unrefridgerated. Oh, sorry
that's mackeral.
Oddly, whenever I make that "joke" around photogs, they don't find it
funny. But, that's another kettle of fish.
-frank
petit miam wrote:
> One question. What does the macro part of the lens do?
> I have
One question. What does the macro part of the lens do?
I have a macro Tamron which I have never used (no
adaptall yet), and am wondering.
Thanks,
Jody.
> > I just bought an SMC-M 50/4.0 macro...
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses
"Rodger Whitlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's a great lens. It was the first Pentax lens I ever bought (hence
>the single vote for it in the favorite lens survey) and I was
>thrilled to pieces a couple of years ago when I got a replacement for
>the original, which had died in a flood.
>
>
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 at 09:41:36 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cheerfully shouted:
> I just bought an SMC-M 50/4.0 macro...
>
> I really bought it for my S.O. to use as a "normal" lens...I thought
> at first that an f4.0 would be too slow for a general purpose lens...
> So is this lens decent? (KEH
6 matches
Mail list logo
