Macro or Close-Up?

[DonnaM]

I may regret starting this thread but here goes anyway.
I have detected a little sensitivity from some forum members regarding lenses described as "Macro" when they cannot focus close enough to do 1:1. What's the beef here guys? What esoteric reason is there to focus 1:1 except perhaps to marginally improve IQ. You are going to enlarge the shot to well over life size to view it or print it so what is special about 1:1?

On an equipment note, what does a dedicated macro lens give you over a (short) telephoto and extension rings?

Thanks in anticipation.

 

[33L]

i'm going to sit and wait for the replies but i feel that it can be frustrating when a lens has to be miles away to even get 1:2 ratio and then be called macro.

some lenses should not be denoted macro but again i am not saying that a macro lens should be 1:1 but it does come in handy thoung for small objects!

 

[Deleted member 3428]

Take a look here Macro Hope this helps your quest

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Heres a quick comparison these were all taken at minimum focus - no crops just a resize - not taken for quality only to show the different FOV and magnification


1 Sigma 24-70mm macro 1:3.8

2 Sigma 105mm macro 1:1

3 Nifty 50 reverse mounted on bellows 4:1

 

[DonnaM]

Thanks guys. I think I get the message. My penchant being landscapes I am always looking for the bigger picture and missing the small things right in front of me. I want to expand my photographic repertoire and have been impressed by both the macro forum and the birds forum. I hope to be able to have a go at both with a telephoto and extension rings. I would like to say watch this space but it will probably be into next spring before I can afford to do what I would like to.