Newby... Macro & Prime are they the same?? Discuss...

[kmills8825]

I'm a newby, and I'm wondering if a macro lens and a prime lens are the same thing? I'm looking to purchase a 50 mm lens (I think) for those inside close up shots of my baking/cooking my pets and my son. (outside as well) Any help would be appreciated.

[inkista]

All true macro lenses (those that can do 1:1 magnification, where the image on the sensor can be the same size as the object in real life) are primes. But not all primes are macros.

A macro lens is one that's engineered to allow close focus. These lenses have smaller minimum focus distances that your average lens. They're typically the sharpest lenses in any lineup and can also be used for more general purpose shooting than close-up photography.

A prime lens is one that has a fixed focal length and doesn't zoom. You frame by moving the camera, not twisting a zoom ring.

[Buddhanature]

You can reverse a 50mm prime and use it as a macro lens: Reverse Mounting Your Prime Lenses for Affordable Macro Photography I don't have have the ring to attach my reversed 50mm prime to my camera, so I hand hold it and use manual mode to determine the proper exposure. It's not as good as a true macro lens, but it suffices for my purposes and is a fun technique to try. My entire macro set on flickr uses this technique: Macro - a set on Flickr I love my 50mm prime lens, it is way faster than my kit lenses.

[sybren]

Another thing that's special about macro lenses is their focus ring. Macro photographers arely shoot something that's moving fast. Ordinarily they have all the time to place their focus at exactly the right spot. The focus ring of a macro lens is therefore more indirect (you have to rotate the ring more to focus from near to far) which makes the focusing slower but more precise.

[kmills8825]

Thanks for the info. I've done a little reading since my post here at DPS. If I opted for the canon EF 100mm F2.8 USM instead of a 50mm am I trading off one thing for the other? Can I get just as close to say a bug, or my child's face with both? The 100 is more expensive, but do I get more bang for my buck? Or are the two totally different lenses in terms of what can/can't be done, meaning I should have both....

[irispatch]

The 100mm 2.8 macro is a very versatile lens. You can move as close as a few inches for that bug ( flash often helps) or you can set up for general portrait work. I have used mine for everything from 1/8 inch leaf hoppers to Monuments at Gettysburg. Though I use mine mostly for Floral and insects. The lens produces very sharp images often compared to those from Canon's best L's. Though there is a new 100mm 2.8L the non L version is an excellent buy today and one that will give many years of service.