[genewch]

I have a 100mm f2.8 macro. I'm happy with it because it produces very sharp pictures when I take portraits, though focusing is a bit difficult. The background blur is natural. I see the MTF chart of the 180mm f3.5 macro is excellent, nearly 1 everywhere. I have the impulse to get it. So can I use this lens to replace a regular tele lens such as 200mm f2.8?

Can anyone tell me the difference between a macro lens and a regular lens? If a tele lens has advantages over a regular lens, why don't people usually use macro lenses (besides of $$)?

[hktsoi]

不同的鏡頭有不同的功能, Macro的作用是微距拍攝或翻拍, 所以在反差方面和解像度方面會比一般鏡頭為高, 對於一些攝影師來說並不喜歡太高反差的鏡頭, 因為很多色彩層次都沒有了. 其次, 針無兩頭利, Macro的成像最好是在近攝的, 對於無限遠的成像會不及一般的鏡頭。

[genewch]

I see. Thank you. :D

Why is a macro lens not as good as a regular tele lens in shooting distant objects? Due to optical characteristics?

As you explained about the macro lens, I'll rather choose a regular lens for distant objects. I'm annoyed in choosing a tele lens. I'm considering Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS or Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX, or even a prime 200mm f2.8 because it's less expensive and less heavy. If anyone has your recommendations or favourites, just tell me.

[wcdc58n]

Tele len...Canon 有支小小白 -- 70-200mm f4 L, 個個都話正, 可以考慮