02-24-2011, 03:25 AM
I nave no exprience with a micro(or macro) lens but I have read that a micro lens usually has super resolution and very good optical quality. I am curious that if a micro lens is used as a normal lens, will it do much better than a normal lens at the same focal lens (of course not being used for portrait shot)?
As a concrete example, I am considering Nikkor AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro. I have seen some photos of walls and rocks etc shooted with this lens, they look remarkable. I wonder if this lens is used as a standard lens on a full frame Nikon, will it do better than the 50mm f1.8 (not considering the maximum aperture)? For shooting objects at a normal near distance (i.e. not too close so that the micro function is irrelevant) I am almost sure 60 2.8 will do better (but not sure if much better), but how about objects at a far distance (e.g. landscape shooting)?
Any commnets and opinions are greatly welcome!
Frank
As a concrete example, I am considering Nikkor AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro. I have seen some photos of walls and rocks etc shooted with this lens, they look remarkable. I wonder if this lens is used as a standard lens on a full frame Nikon, will it do better than the 50mm f1.8 (not considering the maximum aperture)? For shooting objects at a normal near distance (i.e. not too close so that the micro function is irrelevant) I am almost sure 60 2.8 will do better (but not sure if much better), but how about objects at a far distance (e.g. landscape shooting)?
Any commnets and opinions are greatly welcome!
Frank