Any issues using macro lens as normal lens?

Hello all,

 

My first post on this forum although I've been reading it quite a bit to learn.

 

I'm trying to cut down on the lenses that I carry around, particularly when traveling, and thought about using my

Canon 50mm f3.5 macro and 100mm f4.0 macro lenses as my normal lenses. I've read that some folks here do use the

50mm in place of the normal f1.4 or f1.8 lens.

 

Besides the lack of speed, I'm just wondering if there is any other difference between the macro and non-macro.

I've shot some comparison shots with my 50mm 1.4, 1.8, and 3.5 and really can't see a difference now, but I think

that may just be my lack of experience and lack of photography skill in that I'm just now really getting into

film photography. I don't have anything to compare the 100mm to but it seems very sharp when used for non-macro

work.

 

Anyway, I'm taking a trip soon and just don't want to get home and discover that I shouldn't have used a

non-macro lens.

 

Thanks for any response.

 

Tony

Don't forget that the speed issue isn't just limited to what it allows you in terms of faster shutter speeds or more control over depth of field. The difference between f/3.5 and f/1.8 is substantial when it comes to the brightness of your viewfinder and the ability to properly focus in marginal light. There are plenty of times that I'll use an f/1.4 lens on a tripod, exposing at f/11... but need every bit of that f/1.4 to actually see what I'm doing before I release the shutter. Scarcely an issue on a bright day, to be sure.

 

I'm not a Canon guy, but I can tell you that for normal shooting (say, a street scene), my venerable little 50/1.8 produces much nicer results than my Nikkor 60/2.8 macro lens. That macro is razor sharp in its intended use, but it's much less pleasant to use in more random roles than is a lens built around all-purpose use.

Apart from speed there are two other issues. The macro lens is made to focus, in the case of the 50/3.5 FD, to 1:2 by itself. The helical mount is not only longer but angle of the threads is different. I am looking at a 50/3.5 New FD and an old 50/1.8 FD chrome front. If I rotate focusing ring of the 50/3.5 90 degrees I have focused the lens to just about 1.5 feet. The same 90 degree turn with the 50/1.8 gives me 4 feet. What this means is that fine focusing in the non-macro range will be easier to do with the 50/1.8. I have mentioned before that if I must carry only one lens while hiking I would take a 50 or 55 macro. I wouldn't purposely hike in bad weather so lens speed isn't very important. If I am shooting mostly at infinity then it won't matter which lens I use. If I am shooting something 10 feet away I will have to be more careful with the 50/3.5 because fine focusing won't be as easy to do.

 

The second issue has to do with how well a macro lens might perform outside of the macro range. My Canon macro lenses include two 50/3.5 FL lenses, a 100mm f/4 FLM bellows lens, two 50/3.5 FD lenses, two 50/3.5 New FD lenses and a 100/4 New FD. I don't think any of these has floating elements. A macro lens is theoretically designed to perform at its best at a certain magnification ratio. The figure given for 50-55mm macro lenses is 1:10. This means that the lens might not be as good at 1:1 or at 1:50. As a practical matter many macro lenses in the 50-55 range perform very well at infinity. The only way to know this for sure is to try them. I mention floating elements because two of the short macro lenses I have include floating elements in their designs. These are the 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor and the 50/3.5 Zuiko. Both lenses are very sharp at all magnification ratios.

 

The first non-pre-set 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor had a mechanical compensation feature which changed the aperture in the close range to adjust for light loss. This lens was optimized for 1:10 magnification. It was and still is considered to be a very good macro lens but its performance at infinity was not considerd very good. In the Micro Nikkor-P the compensating feature was left out and the spacing of the lens elements was changed a little to improve performance for distant subjects. Some purists like Bjorn Rorslett think that this compromised the performance in the macro range. Although I have both types of 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors I have not done a detailed comparison in the close range. I do find that all of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors from the P model on perform very well at infinity. The 60/2.8 AF Nikkor has a poor reputation for distant subjects but I have never used it so I can't speak about it from my own experience.

 

If you are traveling or hiking and doing mostly hand held shooting then your priorities should be careful focusing and an adequate shutter speed. These will be much more important for your results than whether you used a 50/3.5 or a 50/1.4 for a distant subject. If you're looking to make 16X20 enlargements you should probably be using a larger format and perhaps a tripod too. When I travel I will often take both a 50/1.8 and a 50/3.5. The 50/1.8 doesn't add as much weight to the camera bag as a 50/1.4 and if the light gets low I can get a few more shots.

Thanks for the responses, these are just the tips I was looking for. When I tried to compare my 50mm lenses I was shooting outside in bright sunlight so I didn't notice any viewfinder brightness issue and I was shooting pretty much out to infinity.

 

I guess I'll take my normal 50mm and look for an alternative to the 100mm macro for the mid telephoto length.

While the above answers are both well conceived, I personally think, if you're not shooting in dim light, or don't use a tripod, or don't have aging eyes, that there are basically no genuine disadvantages for normal work. Obviously if you're on a two week wilderness hike, additional weight might be a consideration, etc. OTOH...the macro lenses give you some photo opportunities you might miss with lenses which don't focus as closely...for instance some nature shots as well as some shots of artistic detail (small carvings, etchings, etc). Although I love my 50/1.4, I've found that I prefer to take my 50/3.5 macro in lieu of the 1.4 especially when hiking, just because of the opportunities it affords in nature close-ups.

I vote with Stephen. When I graduated to the F-1n from a decrepit Canonflex system, I bought the F-1 body only and

one lens, the nFD 100mm f/4 Macro. Never regretted it. Most of you have seen my photos on Flickr and can see the

different kinds of images I got with the 100mm Macro. Once I got back to the US, I added some FD lens but for over 10

years I took all my photos with the 100mm Macro and loved every day.

 

YMMV

 

Don B in Hampton Roads

Don, can you point me to your flickr page? I'd like to take a look at your shots.

 

Thanks

No problem. Here's the url:

 

The key here is the date of the photo. Prior to 1977 my shots were with a Canonflex RM outfit with five lenses that I

bought in the early 1960's in Japan. I got a F-1n and a 100mm f/4 Macro Lens in 1977 in England and shot with it till the late 1980's. Outfit

was stolen and I discovered EBay. My CAS (Canon Acquisition Syndrome) was almost uncontrollable. I now have (2)F-

1n, EF, (2)AT-1, and a T-70. Got lenses from 24mm through a 200mm with 2x-B TC. I think I've got a new favorite lens:

35-105mm f/3.5. Having more fun than the law allows.

 

Enjoy

 

Don B in Hampton Roads

Forgot, everyone is not familiar with Flickr. Click on a thumbnail to see a wallet size with comments and equipment

description. Click on 'ALL SIZES' at top of image to see enlargement. Use browser back button to go back to thumbnails.

Hi Tony,

 

As Jeff mentions the focusing action & helicoid travel are certainly different with a macro lens and a minus

compared to traditional design lenses.

 

On the plus side, deeply recessed front elements in many pre-AF macro lenses pretty much remove the need for a

lens hood and reduce your chances of scratching the front glass when you accidentally drop things or bump into sticks

& branches etc.

 

On the subject of speed, if you're willing to try off-brand options then you could consider some slightly faster

macro alternatives to Canon's own FD offerings. I'm currently trying out a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro and a Viv 90mm

f2.8 in FD mount, so far I'm quite pleased with both. If I remember correctly Sigma had well-received 50 and 90mm

f2.8 macros in FD mount too, while Tamron's successive versions of their 90 f2.5 adaptall-2 were not only good

performers but also easily transferred to other mounts.

 

Of course, you were thinking about ways to reduce your load, so maybe suggestions to buy more lenses are

counterproductive :)

I used one as my standard 50mm lens back when my eyes were twenty five years younger, even before laser matte focusing screens appeared around 1980 for the F1n.I do remember even using it with a polarizer which made the focusing aids virtually useless on my A1 & AT 1.A very sharp lens but not really a all purpose lens because it is slow and hard to focus in low light so a tripod becomes one more thing necessary to haul around.Eventually I bought a auto bellows and use it for mostly true macro work like it was designed for in the first place.A 50mm 1.4 is probably a better choice if you need to travel light.Canon does make a true all purpose macro lens but unfortunately it is for the EOS system - the 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro.No,it will not work with a FD based body.

I have a Vivitar f2.8 55mm lens I enjoy using on my AE-1. It supports a 1:1 ratio at closest focus, and still

makes for a gorgeous portrait and all-around lens, without a terribly huge weight or size concern. If you can

find one of these for a fair price, jump on it, it's been wonderful.

 

For example: <a

href:"http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=CA080090134610&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=10&ActivateTOC2=&ID=11&BC=CA&BCC=1&CC=8&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=">KEH.com</a><div></div>

sorry -- <a href="http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=CA080090134610&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=10&ActivateTOC2=&ID=11&BC=CA&BCC=1&CC=8&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=">KEH.com Vivitar 55mm f2.8 link</a href>

I'm also a big fan of the 55/2.8 Vivitar Macro. I have it in mounts to fit Konica AR, Minolta MC, Canon FD, Olympus OM, M42, K and Nikon F. It is also a nice lens for hiking if you aren't carrying much. I would say that the fact that it goes to 1:1 instead of 1:2 is not such a big advantage when hiking bacause shooting hand held at 1:1 is difficult with any lens. The extra half stop of speed of the Vivitar over a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor or 50/3.5 Canon FD can be useful if the light isn't great. The odd thing is that at one time the Vivitar sold for less than a Canon or Nikkor or Minolta lens. I just bought another 50/3.5 Minolta Celtic lens for $15. As its reputation grows the Vivitar seems to be gaining in price.

You can do it but if the issue is just carrying a single lens I recomend buying a 35-105 F3.5 zoom. It is very high quality, as fast as the macros and covers a good range. It is not the same quality as some of the fixed lenses (e.g. 35mm F2, 50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.2) but produces comparable results to the 100mm F4 so long as you do not need macro (the zoom has a wrothless macro setting)>