Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
...just as an aside on that, I have seen photographs described as "macro" when the original object was considerably larger than the sensor of the camera used to take it. Pictures of flowers and butterflies come to mind. By no stretch of the theoretical imagination could those be described as "macro", even if taken with a genuine macro lens.
Maybe we should just talk about close-up photography.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: My Canon 50mm Macro has 0.5x maximum magnification, so would need an extension tube for 1:1.
If you wanted to achieve true 1:1 what size tube would you put on? 12mm 25mm.......etc etc?
A True Macro Lens in my humble opinion achieves 1:1 magnification at its minimum focussing distance.
Equal extension is required for 1:1 with any focal length, so 50mm needs a 50mm extension tube in theory. In reality though, most lenses extend a little to allow them to focus at a range of distances, so the reality is that at the minimum focus distance of a nifty fifty, a single tube of 36mm is all that's required for 1:1, and adding more than that pushes the focal point back inside the lens.
From this article:
"By some definitions, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater. However in other uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size"
In the 80s many zoom lenses stated they were macro - but were in fact no where near, often with 4:1 or 3:1 ratios. Over the years several lenses have appeared that were classified as a "macro" lens (not a zoom with a macro feature) that needed an extension tube (usually a special dedicated one) to go from 2:1 to the true life size of 1:1. The Vivitar Series 1 90mm was one such lens (a few more have been quoted above)
Quote: It is probably an offence under the Trade Description Act (or whatever superseded it) to describe a lens as "macro" if it cannot attain 1:1 images
I doubt that very much! My Canon Macro (0.5x) has 'macro' engraved on the lens.
Macro means different things to different people. Almost every compact has a macro mode but very few if any achieve 1:1.
Thus the phrase "True Macro" which defines an image being magnified at 1:1 taken at a point from the little marking on your dslr or film camera which is in line with the sensor or film and the True Macro Lens then achieving 1:1 magnification at minimum focussing distance.
The 50mm was a cheap buy because it doesnt achieve this
If any Lens magnifies then it can be sold as Macro because it has achieved a magnification over and above its true focal length.
This could however get boring and I doubt anyone here is that accomplished in high end maths and Optics to make a critically accurate response
Quote: This could however get boring and I doubt anyone here is that accomplished in high end maths and Optics to make a critically accurate response
lol - it's not that scientific - macro is close up photography. The saying "true macro" has always been referred to as anything that's lifesize reproduction ration (1:1) or beyond. Lifesize relating back to film days when the subject would be recorded the same size on film as it was in real life. So a bee would appear the same size on the negative or transparency as it was in real life. How the lens manufacturers saw it was that the negative would be enlarged to make a print so the subject would end up being lifesize on the print (or even greater) so they could fairly call their lens a macro lens - even if it wasn't a "true macro"
As I've been asked in several PM's on how do do this and how I can get so close I thought I would post what I'm on about here too......Bear in mind this technique only applies to the Tamron SP Di Macro, but it doesn't differ very much on the Canon's or Sigma's.
The lens need to be at it's Full Limit, but have the focus ring set in manual (pulled back). Then twist lens out using focus ring as far as possible until it reaches the very end of it's limit.
You then have to move the camera with lens slowly towards the object using either the viewfinder or Liveview until everything comes into focus, only then when the image comes into focus is the lens at true 1:1 magnification.
A good technique to learn, but a tricky one as you will be using manual focus......It's using the lens right on the edge of it's limitations, so DOF can be a problem, this can be compensated for using a small aperture/high ISO if the light is bad, or of course Ring Flash could be used.
If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to add your tuppenny worth......
lol - it's not that scientific - macro is close up photography. The saying "true macro" has always been referred to as anything that's lifesize reproduction ration (1:1)
Pmsl, Rofl, Lol and any other numpty sayings
Ahem... Isnt that what I said?
Macro or close up, I`m not bothered with what people call it
Macro photography (or photomacrography or macrography, and sometimes macrophotography) is extreme close-up photography, usually of very small subjects, in which the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size (though macrophotography technically refers to the art of making very large photographs). By some definitions, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater. However in other uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size.
The ratio of the subject size on the film plane (or sensor plane) to the actual subject size is known as the reproduction ratio. Likewise, a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios greater than 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1.
Outside of technical photography and film-based processes, where the size of the image on the negative or image sensor is the subject of discussion, the finished print or on-screen image more commonly lends a photograph its macro status. For example, when producing a 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print using 135 format film or sensor, a life-size result is possible with a lens having only a 1:4 reproduction ratio.
Reproduction ratios much greater than 1:1 are considered to be photomicrography, often achieved with digital microscope (photomicrography should not be confused with microphotography, the art of making very small photographs, such as for microforms).
I knew all this all the time My 10 year old 90mm Tamron shows 1:1 on the distance scale, so on my D7000 I will get 1:1.5
Some 50`s can give 1.1
My 65mm will give me 1:5, or is that 5:1?.......Even more on the 50d........
Ade (leaving room, banging head against wall, wishing I hadn't said anything in the first place.)
Anyway, just to go down a different tangent: does anyone here use a macro lens as a portrait lens as well? I have heard it said they are "too sharp" but that (if it is the case) is hardly a problem which can't be solved.
[quote]Anyway, just to go down a different tangent: does anyone here use a macro lens as a portrait lens as well? I have heard it said they are "too sharp"}
Who said That?
One of the pros on here, a few years back.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar