What is macro?

K

Kev

Messages
301
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just bought a Tamron24-135 which is a macro lens, but, there is nothing on the lens to put it into macro mode and on reading the blurb the macro is 1:3.3.
I thought macro was 1:1, am I doing something wrong or does macro just mean close focus now?

Kev
 
1:1 essentially means that for every cm you use then a cm should be you minium focal distance which means your really close, 1:3 would be if the subject is 1 cm then you need a minimum of 3cms focusing so theoretically 1:1 means you get much closer.
 
mastertrinity said:
1:1 essentially means that for every cm you use then a cm should be you minium focal distance which means your really close, 1:3 would be if the subject is 1 cm then you need a minimum of 3cms focusing so theoretically 1:1 means you get much closer.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that from but its totally wrong........

1:1 macro means something the same size as your camera sensor will fill the viewfinder (100% viewfinder) and be fill the sensor completely, 1:2 (half life size) and a subject the same size as your sensor will only fill half the view finder and half the sensor.

on your D700 the sensor is 23.9 x 36mm so at 1:1 a photo of a ruler will show 36mm, at 1:2 (1/2 life size - twice as much on the sensor)72mm, and at 1:3 108mm, at at 2:1 (twice life) size 18mm

your lens is will only show 10.9 mm and the macro means close focus and its shocking its classed as macro.
 
Kev said:
I've just bought a Tamron24-135 which is a macro lens, but, there is nothing on the lens to put it into macro mode and on reading the blurb the macro is 1:3.3.
I thought macro was 1:1, am I doing something wrong or does macro just mean close focus now?

Kev
Click to expand...

As Dogfish Magnet says and also your lens may have a 'macro' feature however it is not a true macro lens. For true macro you would ideally want a designated 1:1 macro lens....i.e. Tamron 90mm, Nikon 105mm, Sigma 105mm, etc.
 
You're not wrong at all. I've always understood true macro to be 1:1 life size on the film (or sensor of course). All macro lenses I've ever seen have been prime lenses. It's basically just a marketing ploy to call close focussing zooms macro, they're not.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I don't know where you got that from but its totally wrong........

1:1 macro means something the same size as your camera sensor will fill the viewfinder (100% viewfinder) and be fill the sensor completely, 1:2 (half life size) and a subject the same size as your sensor will only fill half the view finder and half the sensor.

on your D700 the sensor is 23.9 x 36mm so at 1:1 a photo of a ruler will show 36mm, at 1:2 (1/2 life size - twice as much on the sensor)72mm, and at 1:3 108mm, at at 2:1 (twice life) size 18mm

your lens is will only show 10.9 mm and the macro means close focus and its shocking its classed as macro.
Click to expand...

thats what i always though :)

some of the lens with macro just mean you have a smaller focusing distance.
 
Bill Roberts said:
You're not wrong at all. I've always understood true macro to be 1:1 life size on the film (or sensor of course). All macro lenses I've ever seen have been prime lenses. It's basically just a marketing ploy to call close focussing zooms macro, they're not.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 70-180 is a macro lens, though it only goes to 1:33.

Macro normally means a lens goes to 1:1, but in reality it's more important that it's designed for macro. Some older macro lenses go to 1:2 and then have special teleconverters to get them to 1:1.

Some of the design considerations are quite important, correcting for close focus, flat plane of focus, optical sharpness, etc.
 
Think of it as your sensor is 1cm across for simples sake and you used a 1:1 lens looking and a ruler you would see 1 cm at your closes focussing distance on the image, now with your 1:3 lens looking through your viewfinder you would see 4.5cm on your image. I think that's right where is a mathematician when you want one :lol:
 
Thanks for all the replies, some good info here.
I don't feel cheated as I bought the lens primarily as a FX standard lens to use until the Nikon 24-70 gets to a more realistic price, but I think it is stretching a point to call it a macro lens.

The lens itself is pretty usefull, initial shots show a nice contrasty sharp image, but it would have been nice if it's what I think of as macro.

Kev
 
Blapto said:
The Nikon 70-180 is a macro lens, though it only goes to 1:33.

Macro normally means a lens goes to 1:1, but in reality it's more important that it's designed for macro. Some older macro lenses go to 1:2 and then have special teleconverters to get them to 1:1.

Some of the design considerations are quite important, correcting for close focus, flat plane of focus, optical sharpness, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pick a fight honestly, but by definition it's not a macro lens then. Certainly the Canon 50mm f/2.5 lens ony goes to 1:2 without the rather expensive and difficult to find converter, so that's not macro either in it's standard form. It's still a superb lens though, as I'm sure the Nikon 70-180 is too... just not macro. ;)
 
Bill Roberts said:
I'm not trying to pick a fight honestly, but by definition it's not a macro lens then. Certainly the Canon 50mm f/2.5 lens ony goes to 1:2 without the rather expensive and difficult to find converter, so that's not macro either in it's standard form. It's still a superb lens though, as I'm sure the Nikon 70-180 is too... just not macro. ;)
Click to expand...

By whose definition? Certainly not Nikon's.

People who are new to photography are often told that a "true" macro lens is 1:1, but that's not true. A true macro lens is that has been designed with the primary purpose being taking photographs of small things. This is one of those general rules of thumb that has been quoted so often it has become true. See: 1/focal length rule, rule of thirds (central composition is ALWAYS bad), etc.
 
Blapto said:
By whose definition? Certainly not Nikon's.

People who are new to photography are often told that a "true" macro lens is 1:1, but that's not true. A true macro lens is that has been designed with the primary purpose being taking photographs of small things. This is one of those general rules of thumb that has been quoted so often it has become true. See: 1/focal length rule, rule of thirds (central composition is ALWAYS bad), etc.
Click to expand...

I disagree. And you can't count a Nikon advert to give any indication of defining what is macro and what isn't, They're using it far more as a marketing tool to sell lenses than as a precise definition.

Since I got interested in photography some 45 years ago I've always understood macro to mean 1:1 ie life size at the focal plane. Just because that doesn't fit in with what you think it should be doesn't make it so.

You're completely right about correcting for close focus, flat plane of focus and sharpness as being important design considerations in a macro lens of course.

But can we just agree to disagree on this one? There are far more important issues to fall out about...

Besides, I've got to find someone to clean out my moat, but that's a whole different issue... Do you think I could claim it on expenses? :thinking:

cheers
 
Bill Roberts said:
I disagree. And you can't count a Nikon advert to give any indication of defining what is macro and what isn't, They're using it far more as a marketing tool to sell lenses than as a precise definition.

Since I got interested in photography some 45 years ago I've always understood macro to mean 1:1 ie life size at the focal plane. Just because that doesn't fit in with what you think it should be doesn't make it so.

You're completely right about correcting for close focus, flat plane of focus and sharpness as being important design considerations in a macro lens of course.

But can we just agree to disagree on this one? There are far more important issues to fall out about...

Besides, I've got to find someone to clean out my moat, but that's a whole different issue... Do you think I could claim it on expenses? :thinking:

cheers
Click to expand...

While i agree that the term "macro" is banded about far too easily by companies as another term for close focusing (the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is a prime example of this) it doesnt meant that a lens that was specifically designed for Macro use has to have a magnification ratio of 1:1.

So, your following opinion isn't right, and just because you have the years to back it up, still doesnt make it right either:

Since I got interested in photography some 45 years ago I've always understood macro to mean 1:1 ie life size at the focal plane.
Click to expand...
 
MJ Stebbings said:
While i agree that the term "macro" is banded about far too easily by companies as another term for close focusing (the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is a prime example of this) it doesnt meant that a lens that was specifically designed for Macro use has to have a magnification ratio of 1:1.

So, your following opinion isn't right, and just because you have the years to back it up, still doesnt make it right either:
Click to expand...

Its widely accepted that true macro is 1:1 or above, anything less is closeup. A lens dose not have to be specifically designed for macro to produce true macro shots - a short focal length lens mounted on bellows / tubes will produce a true macro image 1:1 or larger.
 
This is getting almost as good as some of the filter or no filter threads.
I think I'll just sit back and watch for a while :popcorn:

cheers
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I don't know where you got that from but its totally wrong........

1:1 macro means something the same size as your camera sensor will fill the viewfinder (100% viewfinder) and be fill the sensor completely, 1:2 (half life size) and a subject the same size as your sensor will only fill half the view finder and half the sensor.

on your D700 the sensor is 23.9 x 36mm so at 1:1 a photo of a ruler will show 36mm, at 1:2 (1/2 life size - twice as much on the sensor)72mm, and at 1:3 108mm, at at 2:1 (twice life) size 18mm

your lens is will only show 10.9 mm and the macro means close focus and its shocking its classed as macro.
Click to expand...

thats what i meant but i didnt know how to put it
 
To say that the true definition of macro has any relation to direct figures of scale is completely false. The word 'macro' derives from the Greek word makros, meaning large or long. (link) Any such argument that the correct definition of macro means 1:1 is based on hearsay and misinterpretation.
 
TriggerHappy said:
To say that the true definition of macro has any relation to direct figures of scale is completely false. The word 'macro' derives from the Greek word makros, meaning large or long. (link) Any such argument that the correct definition of macro means 1:1 is based on hearsay and misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

its also a term used to describe a as set of commands that automate a task on a computer.....thats got nothing to do with photography either..........

when used in as a photographic term '' A True macro lens in a scientific sense has to have focusing that attains a reproduction ratio of 1:1" any thing less is just closeup - page 31 digital photo @Expert Knowledge which fell through my letter box today........
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
its also a term used to describe a as set of commands that automate a task on a computer.....thats got nothing to do with photography either..........
Click to expand...

Yes but in that instance it is automating a large or long set of commands, is it not?

Edit:
Dogfish_magnet said:
when used in as a photographic term '' A True macro lens in a scientific sense has to have focusing that attains a reproduction ratio of 1:1" any thing less is just closeup - page 31 digital photo @Expert Knowledge which fell through my letter box today........
Click to expand...

There are plenty of definitions dotted about the internet. One alternative example is this: "One could also define macro photography as where mixed light photography ends and maximum strobe light begins."
What I am saying is that in the strict traditional sense of the word macro and makro there is no such mention of scale and any such definition since is a questionable alteration of the word.

All this said, we're arguing a fairly mute point here.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Yes but in that instance it is automating a large or long set of commands, is it not?

Edit:



All this said, we're arguing a fairly mute point here.
Click to expand...

Not really because people read comments like yours and wonder why the tamron 70-300mm MACRO lens they have bought is crap at macro and a bug is still a small smudge on the viewfinder......... TRUE macro where a lens is concerned is a minimum 1:1 reproduction anything less is closeup
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Not really because people read comments like yours and wonder why the tamron 70-300mm MACRO lens they have bought is crap at macro and a bug is still a small smudge on the viewfinder......... TRUE macro where a lens is concerned is a minimum 1:1 reproduction anything less is closeup
Click to expand...

:agree: Absolutely 100%

Anything less than 1:1 IS NOT macro
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Not really because people read comments like yours and wonder why the tamron 70-300mm MACRO lens they have bought is crap at macro and a bug is still a small smudge on the viewfinder......... TRUE macro where a lens is concerned is a minimum 1:1 reproduction anything less is closeup
Click to expand...

Equally one could argue that comments like yours are misleading people to believe that any macro lens will be able make an ant fill the frame. Labelling the 70-300mm lens as macro isn't misleading people. People only have false expectations of what that macro lens will be capable of.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Equally one could argue that comments like yours are misleading people to believe that any macro lens will be able make an ant fill the frame. Labelling the 70-300mm lens as macro isn't misleading people. People only have false expectations of what that macro lens will be capable of.
Click to expand...

Advice... when you're in a hole, stop digging.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Not really because people read comments like yours and wonder why the tamron 70-300mm MACRO lens they have bought is crap at macro and a bug is still a small smudge on the viewfinder......... TRUE macro where a lens is concerned is a minimum 1:1 reproduction ...
Click to expand...
:plusone:

I've been trying to keep out of this - even deleted one reply after writing it - but Dogfish sums it up very well.

Argue about "definitions" all you like, but if a macro lens doesn't do 1:1 (or have some other outstanding qualities) then it's just not a serious tool for the job.

Stroller.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Equally one could argue that comments like yours are misleading people to believe that any macro lens will be able make an ant fill the frame. Labelling the 70-300mm lens as macro isn't misleading people. People only have false expectations of what that macro lens will be capable of.
Click to expand...


Now your just talking crap i have never stated a ant will fill the frame all i have said is a 1:1 macro lens will produce a image on your sensor the same size as the object you are photographing if it is the same size as your sensor , i have also tried to explain what that means if you take picture of a ruller....


if you are referring to on of my posts in the macro forum with a ant in it i think it states i used 3.5 - 4X magnification for the shot in that thread.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Now your just talking crap i have never stated a ant will fill the frame all i have said is a 1:1 macro lens will produce a image on your sensor the same size as the object you are phtographing, i have also tried to explain what that means if you take apicture of a ruller....


if you are referig to on of my posts in the macro forum with a ant in it i think it states i used 3.5 - 4X magnification for the sot in that thread.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to something you had said nor meant to give the impression I was. Sorry for any offence.
 
Bill Roberts said:
Don't be daft! :)
We can disagree about things without falling out you know...

What happened to your avatar? it disappeared
Click to expand...

Things felt as though they were getting a little heated and I didn't join the forum for an argument. Appreciate that people don't take things personally though.

As for the avatar, there's another on the way before getting distracted.
 
The term 'macro' has never been formally defined, and this has been a bone of contention between the marketing departments of various lens manufacturers for many years. It has got quite heated in the past but since there is no recognised definition, pretty much anything goes. And I don't know where Nikon's 'micro' fits in to this.

To me, the only definition that seems to fit all macro lenses is something along the lines of a lens whose primary purpose is extreme close up photography. At least this excludes all macro-zooms whose primary purpose is usually distant subjects :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top