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
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
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 a
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!
--
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 wants
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.
It goes
6 matches
Mail list logo
