Is close focus of 10 inches the norm for a macro lens of this focal length? I assumed it would focus closer than this. It appears it cannot do 1:1. What am I missing?
Last edited:
daveleo
what?
"Macro"
"Macro"
Some people consider 1:1 as the comparison of a 4X6" print to the 24X36mm negative. That is, you will get a life size image ("1:1") when you make a 4X6" print. The image on the negative of course is smaller.
If I do the math right, a 60mm lens focused at 10" produces an image on a 35mm negative of about 1:4.2 magnification (but I am a little shakey on the exact number).
"Macro"
Some people consider 1:1 as the comparison of a 4X6" print to the 24X36mm negative. That is, you will get a life size image ("1:1") when you make a 4X6" print. The image on the negative of course is smaller.
If I do the math right, a 60mm lens focused at 10" produces an image on a 35mm negative of about 1:4.2 magnification (but I am a little shakey on the exact number).
Interesting A64... so this is a true macro lens then? Since it is 1:2.
daveleo
what?
Yes, I understand that. I was explaining why lenses get labeled "macro" when they truly are not. People (incorrectly) label it a "macro" lens if a 4X6" print produces an image the same size as the actual object. In truth it is about 1:4 scale (not anywhere near "macro" or "micro").
mdarnton
Well-known
Most specialized macros of the past, of the manual focus variety, went to 1:2, then used an extension tube to go to 1:1. I'm thinking particularly of Olympus and Nikon. The new Nikon AF and some other brands of AF lenses go to 1:1, though.
In the past, various off-brands and zooms have used the term "macro" to mean "closer than usual", which can often not be very close, and can mean just about anything. For instance, my 35-70 Nikkor AF zoom is designated a macro, but isn't in any real sense, reaching 1:3.5 on tele, and about 1:7 at 35mm. Some 28mm lenses from off-brands have been designated "macro", but it's just a sales pitch. Before you buy, you'd best get the real info.
In the past, various off-brands and zooms have used the term "macro" to mean "closer than usual", which can often not be very close, and can mean just about anything. For instance, my 35-70 Nikkor AF zoom is designated a macro, but isn't in any real sense, reaching 1:3.5 on tele, and about 1:7 at 35mm. Some 28mm lenses from off-brands have been designated "macro", but it's just a sales pitch. Before you buy, you'd best get the real info.
daveleo
what?
I believe the true image ratio is the focal length of the lens divided by the closest focusing distance.
If it's not exactly that, it's pretty close to that.
So a 60mm lens focused at 254mm (10") has a magnification ratio of 254/60 = 4.2 (or "1:4.2")
As always, I stand to be corrected.
If it's not exactly that, it's pretty close to that.
So a 60mm lens focused at 254mm (10") has a magnification ratio of 254/60 = 4.2 (or "1:4.2")
As always, I stand to be corrected.
daveleo
what?
what is it's closest focusing distance? what is that divided by 60mm?
(this gets a little fuzzy because I am not sure everyone measures the focusing distance from the same plane - front of lens? lens flange? convergence point?)
yikes . . . we are typing too fast ! . . . let me slow down and look at your numbers a little bit.
.
.
. . . . okay, I looked, and I have no clue as to how to get 1:2 reproduction ratio from a 60mm lens focused out at 267mm from the front of the lens . . . that geometry just doesn't work for me . . . I will quietly go away now.
(this gets a little fuzzy because I am not sure everyone measures the focusing distance from the same plane - front of lens? lens flange? convergence point?)
yikes . . . we are typing too fast ! . . . let me slow down and look at your numbers a little bit.
.
.
. . . . okay, I looked, and I have no clue as to how to get 1:2 reproduction ratio from a 60mm lens focused out at 267mm from the front of the lens . . . that geometry just doesn't work for me . . . I will quietly go away now.
daveleo
what?
I agree 1000% . . . making pictures is much more fun than beating these numbers to death.
mdarnton
Well-known
I just shoot a picture of a ruler, and do the math. Doing it based on indicated focal lengths is not the way to do it: Nikon, for instance, achieves 1:1 on the 60mm Micro without a lot of helical fuss by changing the focal length shorter as the lens is extended, gaining effective magnification that way with less extension, so calculations based on the supposed focal length won't work.
gdi
Veteran
FWIW, I have never heard of a real macro lens being anything less that 1:1. I think that claims of a true macro being 1:2 is probably marketing hype. Here are a couple of links - the first one does a good job explaining the basics of magnification...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/blog/macro/macro-micro-closeup-difference.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/blog/macro/macro-micro-closeup-difference.html
Tin
Well-known
My Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 only goes to 1:2. It only goes to 1:1 with an extension tube.
david.elliott
Well-known
my macro takumars go to 1:2
the stuff about a lens needing to go to 1:1 without tubes in order to qualify as a macro lens is relatively recent internet nonsense
the stuff about a lens needing to go to 1:1 without tubes in order to qualify as a macro lens is relatively recent internet nonsense
gdi
Veteran
Right, a true macro lens must be one that has "Macro" stamped on it.
JRG
Well-known
Hmm. Don't wish to start any flame wars, but back in the 70s when I carried a Nikon 55/3.5 Micro on a daily basis, I was taught (by the Photo Department at my university) about the term photomacrography. Back then, that term was defined just as it is in the following internet-age link:
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmar05/chmacro.html
In short: Photomacrography starts at 1:1. Anything short of that is merely closeup. And photomicrography requires a microscope.
I recall all this because there was discussion in the class about whether the 55 Micro-Nikkor I carried really qualified as "micro". (It didn't. And doesn't.)
Just my $0.021.
gdi
Veteran
You are absolutely right, but in the age of the internets everyone has their own definition of "true macro" - and "nonsense".
Definition form the McGraw Hill Science & Tech Dictionary - http://accessscience.com/popup.aspx?id=58837&name=def
david.elliott
Well-known
I didn't say that. And, regarding your other post as well, I'd appreciate it if you would please not get snippy with me. I'm sorry if you took offense at my use of the word 'nonsense.' I regret it.
Definitions vary and can be as useful as one wants. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macro lens
"a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image"
david.elliott
Well-known
I certainly do not wish to start any arguments, disputes, or flame wars either. I'm perfectly happy to bow out of this thread as of this post and I'm perfectly happy to be incorrect in my prior statement.
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading it. It seems to me that the link defines photomacrophotography and photomicrophotography quite clearly, but does not define a macro lens or a micro lens. The setup towards the end of the article is capable of engaging in photomicrophotography but does not use a lens designed for that type of photography, nor one that is labeled for that type of photography.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I think a macro lens is one whose performance has been optimized for close focus work and high levels of enlargement in reproduction. The 150 G-Claron was one of these and would produce better results, all other things being equal, than say, a 150 APO-Symar used at the same bellows extension. It isn't that a macro lens wouldn't work for normal working distances or that a normal lens couldn't be hitched to an extension tube. It's just that the macro lens brings mo-betta macro optics mojo to the table.
Ben
Ben
gdi
Veteran
I had assumed, after your 'nonsense' comment, you were probably speaking as an owner or potential owner of a lens marketed as "Macro" - maybe the 60mm Fuji.
Regarding definitions, I don't consider them fungible, particularly in this case. As I said, in my experience, the technical definition is that a macro lens has at least 1:1 magnification (that is why I referenced a dictionary of technical terms). The link you provided from the general dictionary seems particularly lacking in that it isn't very specific and that it states that a macro lens is one that only reaches a life-size magnification. I would consider the link that JRG provided a much more authoritative source.
Anyway, if one doesn't care about the which definition is more accepted or accurate, it won't make the lens magnify any more or less. If you have the Fuji lens, you can call it macro or not and the pictures will be the same....
david.elliott
Well-known
I own lenses that focus to 1:1 without the use of any other equipment and I own lenses that only go to 1:2 on their own. Doesn't matter to me either way.
I'm not particularly interested in debating the subject further. I'll just let it drop.
Have a good night.
I'm not particularly interested in debating the subject further. I'll just let it drop.
Have a good night.