Macro confusion

quess who wrote:
> I am planning to buy my first dslr. I also do a lot of closeup flower
> photography with my digital compact camera. The focal length of the
> macro lenses has me totally confused. Which would a better lens for my
> primary purpose of photographing flowers on a table top -- 50mm or
> 100mm? Also what would be the affect of putting a non digital lens on
> a dslr? For example if I put a Pentax AF 50mm macro on the new Pentax
> 100k what would be the effect?

Don't know about the Pentax part, but would observe that one can achieve
more control over DoF with a DSLR, and one gets a shallower DoF
possible with a longer lens. Therefor, in shooting some flowers, I use
my 70-200 ƒ2.8 wide open to nicely blur the background. No macro involved.

--
john mcwilliams

Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

In article <1158848091.953105.17050.RemoveThis@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer.RemoveThis@usfamily.net> wrote:

> A 50 mm lens will make the flower look more massive than
> the 100.

That is not perspective. That is foreshortening.

The shorter the focal length the larger things will appear that are
closer to the lens.

Not only would the flower be possibly abnormally large it would also
exaggerate its' shape. A longer lens would make the flower look more
realistic.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

quess who wrote:
> I am planning to buy my first dslr. I also do a lot of closeup flower
> photography with my digital compact camera. The focal length of the
> macro lenses has me totally confused. Which would a better lens for my
> primary purpose of photographing flowers on a table top -- 50mm or
> 100mm? Also what would be the affect of putting a non digital lens on
> a dslr? For example if I put a Pentax AF 50mm macro on the new Pentax
> 100k what would be the effect?

The "Crop Factor" on your Pentax K100 is about 1.5.
So the 50 mm lens on the K100, would act like a 75 mm lens acts on a
conventional 35 mm SLR.
Similarly a 100 mm Macro lens would would act like a 175 mm lens.
The main difference is that the closest focus of the 100 mm lens is
farther away from the subject than with the 50 mm lens.
This can be helpful when photographing close ups of insects etc., that
may be spooked if you get too close to them.
Also the 100 mm lens would probably render the flower closer to its
natural shape because the foreshortening effect would be less pronounced.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:45:14 GMT, quess who <nobody RemoveThis @somewhere.com>
wrote:

>I am planning to buy my first dslr. I also do a lot of closeup flower
>photography with my digital compact camera. The focal length of the
>macro lenses has me totally confused. Which would a better lens for my
>primary purpose of photographing flowers on a table top -- 50mm or
>100mm? Also what would be the affect of putting a non digital lens on
>a dslr?

Without getting into the properties of photons, all lenses act as
analog devices; the distinction is one of construction.
In "digital" lenses, there are differences made to account for
characteristics of digital cameras, as opposed to film cameras.
For example, the sensor will reflect more light than film does, as a
rule, so "digital" lenses may have coatings on some elements to reduce
flaring from those reflections.
Also, on 'crop-factor' cameras (especially DSLRs) the "digital" lens
may have a smaller image circle, meaning less weight/smaller
dimensions/lower cost than a "normal" lens. (See, for example, Canon's
EF-S lenses.)
>For example if I put a Pentax AF 50mm macro on the new Pentax
>100k what would be the effect?

I have no idea.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

Bob Williams wrote:
>
>
> quess who wrote:
>
>> I am planning to buy my first dslr. I also do a lot of closeup flower
>> photography with my digital compact camera. The focal length of the
>> macro lenses has me totally confused. Which would a better lens for my
>> primary purpose of photographing flowers on a table top -- 50mm or
>> 100mm? Also what would be the affect of putting a non digital lens on
>> a dslr? For example if I put a Pentax AF 50mm macro on the new Pentax
>> 100k what would be the effect?
>
>
> The "Crop Factor" on your Pentax K100 is about 1.5.
> So the 50 mm lens on the K100, would act like a 75 mm lens acts on a
> conventional 35 mm SLR.
> Similarly a 100 mm Macro lens would would act like a 175 mm lens.
> The main difference is that the closest focus of the 100 mm lens is
> farther away from the subject than with the 50 mm lens.
> This can be helpful when photographing close ups of insects etc., that
> may be spooked if you get too close to them.
> Also the 100 mm lens would probably render the flower closer to its
> natural shape because the foreshortening effect would be less pronounced.
> Bob Williams
>
OOps!
The 100 mm lens on the K100 would act like a 150 mm lens would act on a
35 mm SLR.
Also, a 100 mm Macro would be longer, bulkier, heavier and more
expensive than a 50 mm Macro.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

"Bob Williams" <mytbob.TakeThisOut@cox.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4OJQg.50$UJ2.34@fed1read07...
>
>
> Bob Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>> quess who wrote:
>>
>>> I am planning to buy my first dslr. I also do a lot of closeup flower
>>> photography with my digital compact camera. The focal length of the
>>> macro lenses has me totally confused. Which would a better lens for my
>>> primary purpose of photographing flowers on a table top -- 50mm or
>>> 100mm? Also what would be the affect of putting a non digital lens on
>>> a dslr? For example if I put a Pentax AF 50mm macro on the new Pentax
>>> 100k what would be the effect?
>>
>>
>> The "Crop Factor" on your Pentax K100 is about 1.5.
>> So the 50 mm lens on the K100, would act like a 75 mm lens acts on a
>> conventional 35 mm SLR.
>> Similarly a 100 mm Macro lens would would act like a 175 mm lens.
>> The main difference is that the closest focus of the 100 mm lens is
>> farther away from the subject than with the 50 mm lens.
>> This can be helpful when photographing close ups of insects etc., that
>> may be spooked if you get too close to them.
>> Also the 100 mm lens would probably render the flower closer to its
>> natural shape because the foreshortening effect would be less pronounced.
>> Bob Williams
>>
> OOps!
> The 100 mm lens on the K100 would act like a 150 mm lens would act on a 35
> mm SLR.
> Also, a 100 mm Macro would be longer, bulkier, heavier and more expensive
> than a 50 mm Macro.
>


True. But one problem shooting with macro lenses of shorter focal lengths
is that one has to get the lens close to the subject, making it difficult to
light the subject properly. The longer focal length allows the lens to be
positioned farther away from the subject and that often makes for better
light to fall on the subject.

I have 50mm and 100mm macros, and I rarely use the 50, just for that reason.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

"jeremy" <jeremy.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Bob Williams" <mytbob.RemoveThis@cox.nospam.net> wrote
> > Also, a 100 mm Macro would be longer, bulkier, heavier and more expensive
> > than a 50 mm Macro.
>
> True. But one problem shooting with macro lenses of shorter focal lengths
> is that one has to get the lens close to the subject, making it difficult to
> light the subject properly. The longer focal length allows the lens to be
> positioned farther away from the subject and that often makes for better
> light to fall on the subject.
>
> I have 50mm and 100mm macros, and I rarely use the 50, just for that reason.

Amen. My first SLR lens was a slightly used 100 MM Macro. Then I had
to buy a body to put it on. It has served me well. I do a lot of
flower photography, and with the 100 MM Macro, I can use a flash mounted
near the camera with no problem. I can allow enough distance to allow
natural light to hit the subject. I prefer fill flash, so natural light
is very important. I can shoot insects without scarring them to death.
When I need to travel light, I just use the 100 mm macro and a 35 mm
wide angle. With those 2 lenses I can do 99% of my shots. To me a 50
mm macro is about the most useless lens made and is usually used with a
ring flash which costs more than a 100 mm macro, or almost as much. A
100 mm macro can use an ordinary system flash.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman.RemoveThis@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion 

MY thanks to all who replied. It was most helpful. Unfortunately I
cannot afford a 100mm macro so I got the 50mm. Haven't tried it yet,
but I have this small orchid blooming in the greenhouse that will be a
perfect candidate for my next shoot.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:45:14 GMT, quess who <nobody.RemoveThis@somewhere.com>
wrote:

>I am planning to buy my first dslr. I also do a lot of closeup flower
>photography with my digital compact camera. The focal length of the
>macro lenses has me totally confused. Which would a better lens for my
>primary purpose of photographing flowers on a table top -- 50mm or
>100mm? Also what would be the affect of putting a non digital lens on
>a dslr? For example if I put a Pentax AF 50mm macro on the new Pentax
>100k what would be the effect?
 >> Stay informed about: Macro confusion