|
YES - Not only farther away, but less potential for other issues as well - such as lighting issues that I noted and also if you are taking pictures of something very small you will have less visual distortion - it will appear more "natural". I'm trying to imagine in simplified terms how to illustrate this - try me on this one......
Look at your computer monitor as close at the eye can get and still see the entire perimeter. Note how the "middle" of the field of view is accentuated. The outside is visible but somewhat distorted/unnatural. Now back up and look at the entire monitor again and imagine you can only see the monitor from further back. If you need to, take your hands and form a square or circle and look through them at your monitor to help block out the perimeter. This is a little bit like the idea of what you will be noting in the difference between taking a picture close up with say the difference between a 50mm and a 100mm lens. I would suggest you visit a camera shop and have them put each lens on a camera body for you and then try them and see how close you have to get to take a picture of something the size of an orchid flower for example.
There does come a time when the larger mm doesn't work real well for other types of shots. For example taking a picture of an entire large plant would force you to be a LONG way away with a 100mm macro, whereas a 50mm might work nicely. What I've found is that the inexpensive zoom lens that came with the camera does an acceptable job (though not great) with the entire plant pics and larger and the macro lens has its place with the closeups in unsurpassed quality. Keep up the questions and keep learning - YOU WILL get it........
 |