Macro Lens vs Regular Lens

crazedACD

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
3,048
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
West Missouri
#1
I'm lens shopping again and wondering if someone might have some input here. I always thought macro lenses were more for...well, really up close stuff like insects or the veining on leaves or what have you. Well I've been looking at various lenses, and seeing that some people use macro lenses for pets, portraits, etc. What kind of difference is there between the two?

I have a Sony A390. Currently have the kit 18-55, a 55-200 F/4.0-5.6, and a 50mm F/1.8. I mostly use it for the animals, but sometimes for family events/some landscape or creative shots. I do wish I could get better shots of my fish/fish tanks.

Any other suggestions?
 

RBark

Got Floof?
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
961
Likes
0
Points
16
#2
The difference between the two is what kind of artistic effect you are going for. Macro lens tend to bring out the details, and a sharper and more accurate corner to corner image. So you can really bring out the details of someone's eyes, hair, and so on.

The focus on macro lens are good as well. You can stand as close to the person as you want and have super sharp focus, whereas with a prime 50mm 1.8 you'd need to be a decent distance away. So you can get more creative shots with it.

However, there are downsides. Due to it's smaller aperture, it's harder to make the subject stand out in some kinds of portrait type shots depending on background. If you have a busy background, it'll be very distracting. With a wider aperture like the 1.8 50mm, you can have a super nice creamy bokeh background that will really bring out the person's whole face.

Lastly, macro lens can really make people with less than perfect skin have their, well, for lack of better word, undesirable appearances REALLY stand out. So beware of that, some people can get really self conscious about that. Every red mark, dry or torn hair, razor burn, dry skin and wrinkle will stick out much more than a prime.
 

crazedACD

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
3,048
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
West Missouri
#3
The difference between the two is what kind of artistic effect you are going for. Macro lens tend to bring out the details, and a sharper and more accurate corner to corner image. So you can really bring out the details of someone's eyes, hair, and so on.

The focus on macro lens are good as well. You can stand as close to the person as you want and have super sharp focus, whereas with a prime 50mm 1.8 you'd need to be a decent distance away. So you can get more creative shots with it.

However, there are downsides. Due to it's smaller aperture, it's harder to make the subject stand out in some kinds of portrait type shots depending on background. If you have a busy background, it'll be very distracting. With a wider aperture like the 1.8 50mm, you can have a super nice creamy bokeh background that will really bring out the person's whole face.

Lastly, macro lens can really make people with less than perfect skin have their, well, for lack of better word, undesirable appearances REALLY stand out. So beware of that, some people can get really self conscious about that. Every red mark, dry or torn hair, razor burn, dry skin and wrinkle will stick out much more than a prime.
Thank you very much! I'm sorry I missed this, I didn't think anyone ever responded. I did get gifted one but haven't had time to play with it much.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top