-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Are you really a macro lens ?
- Thread starter lil-lynx
- Start date
35mm Macro is typically defined as image size on a 35mm film which is between 1/10th life size to life size. If the lens you are interested in has a magnification of 1:10 or better then it is really a macro lens.
Photo.net review of this lens indicates the magnification ratio of 1:3.5 so this counts as macro.
Cheers,
Photo.net review of this lens indicates the magnification ratio of 1:3.5 so this counts as macro.
Cheers,
Themuleous
Member
Cant say I understood any of that, but sounds like you got an answer!!! 
Sam
Sam
Sorry Sam, didn't mean to babble. Do you remember getting back the negatives from the lab when you sent your 35mm film in for processing? They came back in a little packet with strips of maybe 4 or 5 frames right? Well each image, or frame, sits in a rectangular area 35mm long by 24mm wide. Now you can take a penny an lay it over one of the frames. But if you took a picture of that penny, when you looked at the frame the image of the penny would be a lot smaller than an actual penny. Almost all lenses produce an image with a lower magnification than real life. That's the only way you can take a picture of something and have the object fit in the 35x24mm physical space of the film. The object has to be de-magnified. This is obvious but nobody ever thinks about it because we just take it for granted.
What a macro lens does is attempt to approach a 1:1 magnification. That means if I take a picture of a penny, when I look at the negative, the image of the penny on the negative will be the same size as an actual penny. If the image of the penny is only half the size of a real penny then the magnification ratio is only 1:2 or 1/2 right?
So a lens with a magnification of 1:3.5 means that if I mount that lens on a film camera and take a picture of the penny, the resulting image of the penny on the film will be somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/4th the size of an actual penny.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
What a macro lens does is attempt to approach a 1:1 magnification. That means if I take a picture of a penny, when I look at the negative, the image of the penny on the negative will be the same size as an actual penny. If the image of the penny is only half the size of a real penny then the magnification ratio is only 1:2 or 1/2 right?
So a lens with a magnification of 1:3.5 means that if I mount that lens on a film camera and take a picture of the penny, the resulting image of the penny on the film will be somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/4th the size of an actual penny.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
The 'macro' term on a lot of lenses means that it can be used close-up to the subject you are shooting i.e. the minimum focusing distance is less than 30cm from the camera. They aren't necessarily true macro lenses, but it's more a marketing ploy.
As Clive says, a true 'macro' is one that has 1:1 scale, like the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro.
As Clive says, a true 'macro' is one that has 1:1 scale, like the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro.
Steve Smith
Member
Canon prime is fixed focal length (hope I'm not mixing my terminology up there) so no good as a macro as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't mind a nifty 50 
The Canon 50mm f/1.8 (also known as the "nifty-fifty") is a great value lens but is not suitable for macro/close-up work as the minimum focusing distance is 45cm. This means the closest you can get to your subject is 45cm, so the subject won't appear close-up in the image.lil-lynx said:
However, it is possible to reverse fit this lens, making it usable macro work.
http://www.tyleringram.com/blog/reverse ... -the-setup
This aside, the 50mm f/1.8 is probably the best value lens available for Canon DSLR users. I use mine a lot for full-tank shots and portrait work, so it's a worthwhile purchase IMO, even if you're not using for macro.
Very cheap build-quality - it's plastic and quite flimsy. The auto-focus is slow and noisy too. The focusing ring is very small and not the most ergonomic.lil-lynx said:
However, it's very sharp. Even wide-open at f/1.8 it is quite impressive.
For the money you can't go wrong IMO. Mine has paid for itself many times over in the 12 or so month I've owned one.
Type, "canon 50mm f1.8 review" into any search engine for more info. It's a very well documented lens.
cool thanks, its just im getting in to photography this year ( only 16) i have a canon eos 20d with a canon 70 - 300mm lens a canon 35-135mm lens and the good old standard 18-55mm lens, do i really need this nifty fifty ?, what do you use it for apart from full shots of your aquarium ?
You don't really need it. But your other lenses won't perform so well in low light, as they have much smaller apertures.lil-lynx said:
Also when shooting large apertures you can throw backgrounds nicely out of focus. This is an effective technique for highlighting the subject, and avoiding distracting 'clutter' in backgrounds.
I use my 50mm a lot for shooting people/potraits. But it's a nice lens walkaround lens too - saintly has taken some very nice nature shots with his 50mm f/1.4.
Another aspect to using prime/fixed focal length lenses is that you are 'forced' to consider your composition etc. further. You have to 'zoom' with your feet, rather than relying on the lens.
I can say that using prime lenses improved my overall photography considerably, especially with regards the whole process of composing and carefully considering what you are shooting to get the best result.
If you heart is set on a macro lens then save up - or buy a nifty-fifty and consider some filters. The quality won't be there but you can have some fun, and if you really get into it, perhaps save up for a better macro lens.
