![rolleiflex 2.8 minimum focusing distance rolleiflex 2.8 minimum focusing distance](https://www.butkus.org/chinon/rollei/rolleiflex_28_e/body23.jpg)
Effectively it is a 50 mm lens, with framing options right down to 24 mm and right up to 105 mm, a factor of ~ 2 either way. The 24-105 is a standard zoom, and even though it covers the 100 mm FL area as well, it isn't a 100 mm. I would still like to address two points in your original post, if you don't mind. Since you already got the 100 macro, and as you seem to be very happy with it, advice on this lens is a bit moot. Well worth it, and I haven't even started really using it for macro!
Rolleiflex 2.8 minimum focusing distance manual#
Manual focusing was easier than any other lens I've used too. The autofocus wasn't perfect (occasionally hunted in the wrong direction), but it was accurate. I took almost a thousand images, and the keep rate was pretty high. It was kind of fun to work with the limits of a single Focal Length all day long. I am super happy with this lens! The crispness is amazing, and the F/2.8 is great for both light and separating the subject from surroundings. I got the 100mm L Macro last night and used as my primary lens all day long at an "occupy" protest (There was one shot I caved and used the kit lens because I couldn't get far enough away to put everything in the shot). It looks like the 100mm Macro can be used for normal photography as well, and seems sharp.
![rolleiflex 2.8 minimum focusing distance rolleiflex 2.8 minimum focusing distance](https://emulsive.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/COVER-Reviewing-the-Rolleiflex-2.8GX-Expression-75-years-edition-its-bloody-gold-1200x1212.jpg)
What I'm really lacking is an understanding of what makes macro lenses macro lenses besides a relatively low MFD. I'd love to get a little more crispiness than the 28-135 is giving me, and this is the logical next step for that. It seems to be well regarded, and the MFD isn't too long. The other lens I was considering was the 24-105 L IS. 5, but that magnification sounds like an interesting space to play in. Looking at the Minimum Focus Distance comparisons, I don't see how the macro lens gets 1.0 magnification while lenses that focus almost as close are well below. I do shoot some stuff at other focal lengths, and having the flexability of a zoom is nice.ฤก00mm FL seems like a good place to start for a decent prime as I like longer focal lengths, but don't always have room to get far enough away to use 180mm. Most of the stuff I wind up shooting is macro-ish I'm shooting with a normal lens (like a 28-135) with an extension tube as needed.