02-24-2011, 06:26 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298517901' post='6307']
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)?
[/quote]
One of the important things about a good macro lens is additional optics to correct for close range aberrations (in addition to the obvious extra extension allowed by the focusing mechanism). An ordinary 60mm f/2.8 lens should have a fairly simple construction but looking at the 12 element design of the AF-S 60 macro, it's clear that it has those extra optics. This should have some impact when shooting things near-infinity but without really testing, I can't tell.
But here's a comparison of the AF-S 60 2.8 and the 50 1.8 on the D3x:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...&APIComp=6
If the macro lens is not any more special at f/11 at chart distances, as shown, I can't see why the non-macro lens would get worse at further distances (for small apertures).
If you're talking about bokeh, focusing, etc. then I have a strong feeling the 60 is significantly better.
GTW
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)?
[/quote]
One of the important things about a good macro lens is additional optics to correct for close range aberrations (in addition to the obvious extra extension allowed by the focusing mechanism). An ordinary 60mm f/2.8 lens should have a fairly simple construction but looking at the 12 element design of the AF-S 60 macro, it's clear that it has those extra optics. This should have some impact when shooting things near-infinity but without really testing, I can't tell.
But here's a comparison of the AF-S 60 2.8 and the 50 1.8 on the D3x:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...&APIComp=6
If the macro lens is not any more special at f/11 at chart distances, as shown, I can't see why the non-macro lens would get worse at further distances (for small apertures).
If you're talking about bokeh, focusing, etc. then I have a strong feeling the 60 is significantly better.
GTW