Lens comparison and recommendation

[dlwjiang]

Sony Lens: Primes - Sony 35mm f/1.8 DT SAM SAL35F18 - SLRgear.com!

This is a sony 35 mm f/1.8, equivalent to a 50mm prime, something that's recommended quite a lot.

I'm also curious about the 35 mm macro lens though, as the macro lens can also be used for portraits, I'm thinking the only difference between the two would be a slower aperture on the macro lens. f/2.8 I believe.

Currently I'm leaning towards the 35mm macro since it seems more suited for "all-round" work while the f/1.8 might be somewhat specialized for portraits.

Is there anything else I should take into consideration? Perhaps lens quality itself? Or maybe they're both worth getting?

[OsmosisStudios]

The Macro allows you to get 1:1 reproduction of images, but at 35mm you'll essentially be touching the item with your lens. Thats a USELESS focal length for macro.

[dlwjiang]

Ermm...no offense or anything but you've basically just said that a macro lens does macro and that said macro lens is useless for macro.

So...crap lens + don't get? Would the 50mm macro be better? I've heard that a 50mm prime is quite useful(though I don't know if it applies as a 75mm equivalent). I've also heard that a macro lens is also not bad at further focusing distances.

So I'm caught up in a choice between two prime lenses with the same field of vision, the difference is that one can do macro, and the other has a larger max aperture.

What would be a recommendation?

[ravncat]

Macro tends to be benefited by large working distance. Space between lense and subject, these are almost always longer focal lengths.

I'd go with faster aperature at you selected focal length

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dlwjiang

Ermm...no offense or anything but you've basically just said that a macro lens does macro and that said macro lens is useless for macro.

A little insight would help you.

A macro lens like that is only really good for macro, as the point of having a fast prime lens is having one that is faster that f/2.8. So it wont be much good for portraits because of the aperture.

it's also useless as a macro lens because its too short. So while it is designed to be used for Macro, it's useless for exactly that purpose. It's a macro lens that is too short to be of any use as a macro lens.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

...It's a macro lens that is too short to be of any use as a macro lens.

Matter of opinion. Its working distance will be short, but depending on your subject matter, it can still be useful.

If your subject matter is bugs, then yes, it's useless.

If your subject matter is stuff that doesn't move, and you can light the subject so your shadow falling over it won't obstruct your shot, then it can still be useful, just as a G9's macro mode letting you get within 1cm of your subject can still be useful.

I shoot with a 60mm macro, not a 100mm, and I can't shoot critters easily with it--I'm too close for comfort. But for flowers and tabletop macros, it's excellent. I also have a non-macro 35mm lens with a relatively close minimum focus distance, that helps me get great shots of plants. This was shot with an adapted Leica-R 35mm Summicron (f/2) lens with no special macro capability at all.



So, depending on the usage, a 35mm may not be completely useless. It will, however, be of more limited usefulness than a longer macro lens, which will give you a larger working distance, and get you closer to the action.