Can a macro lens be used for portraits, wildlife, or sports at longer distances?

Asked 7/19/2011

4 views

2 answers

0

I’m considering a macro lens that has a focal length I’d also like for general telephoto use. Aside from not being a zoom, are there any drawbacks to using a macro lens for distant subjects such as portraits, wildlife, or sports?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

14

Most prime macro lenses are suitable for distant subjects. However, there are some exceptions:

  • the king of macro photography, Canon MP-E 65, will not focus far enough to fit more than an eye or nose on a portrait;

  • some macro lenses, like Pentax DA 35 Limited Macro, have a short focal length -suitable for distant subjects only as environmental shots showing context rather than details of the subject; shorter than about 50mm on APS-C or 75mm on full frame are generally not considered suitable as portrait lens;

  • some zoom lenses are also sold as "macro" lenses; generally they have a variable aperture similar to consumer zooms. You can take portraits with them, but you have to use other tricks to get a good background separation (e.g. background far away, plain background, lighting subject to underexpose background).

Macro lenses are made to be comfortable for precise manual focusing (because that's how macro is mostly done), so their large focusing range is spread over almost a full turn of focusing ring. This implies that auto-focus can be a bit slow, especially if there's no focus range limit switch and the lens goes hunting through the whole range. Prefocusing to an approximate distance might help you here in many cases.

Another disadvantage in using macro lenses compared to a regular primes lens is their moderate maximum aperture for a prime of similar focal length (especially ones preferred for low-light, fast action or portraiture), usually in range of f/2.8 to f/4.5 - for macro, more would be overkill. Tamron 60mm f/2.0 is a surprising exception here; unfortunately 60mm has to be so close to subject it will scare away living critters, also lighting becomes challenging; so it has somewhat limited use in macro world.

The smaller aperture means less flexibility in getting thin depth of field. But small maximum aperture means the aperture for maximum sharpness is even slower (typically by a stop or two), meaning you have to take harder compromises between sharpness and background separation by DOF.

That said, an f/2.8 macro lens is still on par with professional zooms aperture-wise.

Originally by user4390. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user4390

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Usually yes. A true macro lens is generally just a regular lens that can also focus much closer, so for distant subjects it can work perfectly well.

For portraits, many macro primes are very good choices, especially at classic portrait focal lengths. The main limitation is focal length: shorter macro lenses may be less flattering for tight portraits and are better for environmental shots. Very specialized macro lenses can also be exceptions—for example, some are designed only for extreme close-up work and won’t focus far enough for normal distant subjects.

One thing to watch is the term “macro” on some zoom lenses. These often just mean closer-than-normal focusing rather than true 1:1 macro, and they may have typical consumer-zoom limitations like variable aperture. They can still be used, but background separation may be harder.

So in general, a true macro prime has little to no downside for distant subjects beyond the usual prime-lens tradeoffs. Just make sure the specific lens can focus to infinity and that its focal length and aperture suit your intended use.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer