Basic Macro Questions

[BlindGuyTakingPictures]

If I am 30 feet away from an object, what would be the difference between taking a picture with my non-Macro 60 mm lens as opposed to my Macro 60mm lens?
Will I see any difference?

Is the maco lens mostly for when you are just a few inches from the subject and the lens (30mm, 60mm 100mm....) is simply how close-up you want to get?

[Livinthalife]

At 30ft away, there will be NO difference (quality varies from lens to lens though).

Macro is specifically for getting up close and personal. Macro lenses are all capable of 1:1 reproduction.

Check this out for more on the definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

[LordV]

As commented above, no difference except perhaps in IQ - macro lenses have very good specifications and effectively yield at least L lens optical quality.
Brian V.

[zoeysmom]

No difference. However I've found my 60mm macro to be the sharpest in the bag. Even competes with my L lenses

[robrobin]

I agree, my 60 & 100mm macro lenses are very crisp. The 100mm yields better IQ for 1:1 but for other work the 60mm serves as a great portrait lens.

[Naturalist]

The EF-S 60 macro gets within 2 inches of the subject so you can reproduce at 1:1 scale (lifesize) whereas a normal 60mm lens without macro capability will only get you within, say, 14 inches and NOT reproduce at 1:1.

[dpastern]

I disagree with the others here. You'll see some subtle differences. Macro lenses are usually sharper, and retain finer detail, but you'll have to pixel peep to notice this. Also, macro lenses will generally focus slower, due to the usage of internal focus (helical). Also, most macro lenses are sharper throughout the f stop ranging than their non macro cousins, so you'll probably end up with sharper shots, especially at the edges when using them wide open even. One final thing, most macro lenses have flatter fields, resulting in the edges of the frame being substantially sharper than non macro lenses.

Dave

[Livinthalife]

I disagree with the others here. You'll see some subtle differences. Macro lenses are usually sharper, and retain finer detail, but you'll have to pixel peep to notice this. Also, macro lenses will generally focus slower, due to the usage of internal focus (helical). Also, most macro lenses are sharper throughout the f stop ranging than their non macro cousins, so you'll probably end up with sharper shots, especially at the edges when using them wide open even. One final thing, most macro lenses have flatter fields, resulting in the edges of the frame being substantially sharper than non macro lenses.

Dave

There is a trade off. It's not all perfect. Macro lenses are slower than regular primes. Macros are generally heavier and larger as well...Pros and cons ;)

[dpastern]

Are we talking ergonomics or IQ? I said AF was slower (due to IF helical focusing on most macro lenses). On my Sigma 150mm it's slower, but not that much slower than my non macro Canon lenses. Sure, it's also a bit heavier, but no worse than any of Canon's L series lenses. If size and weight are really an issue, get a compact (note sarcasm).

Dave

[Tom O]

I agree, my 60 & 100mm macro lenses are very crisp. The 100mm yields better IQ for 1:1 but for other work the 60mm serves as a great portrait lens.

Please explain this a little more as my understanding is the 60mm & the 100mm are exactly the same optically i.e. 12 elements, 8 groups. So, how would the IQ be better in one than the other? I'm no expert so I may be missing something.

[Livinthalife]

Macro are the best. I doubt you are going to see any noticeable difference in IQ between the two macro lenses (60 & 100). Somebody was probably pixel peeping ;). I seriously doubt it's anything noticeable though.