Macro different mm

I thought 1:1 meant for 100mm it was 100mm away?

I thought it meant the image was full size i.e. if the bug was 10mm long the image of it would be 10mm long. 1:2 bug 10mm image 5mm etc.

1:1 only refers to the magnification ratio.
In lame terms: A 1:1 macro lens is capable of reproducing a object life size.

for instance: a coin with a diameter of 2 cm will be reproduced exactly the same size. This all goes back to the film days, but I suspect crop factors of digital sensors don't change anything to the principle.

Martin.

edit: to late, a thing that hunts me from the day I was born.

Amin, is`nt it about time you realised, you HAVE become one of the more experienced members of the forum, at least when you are not messing about with "smoke".

Davex.

Or wine, for that matter.

But I second your overall post. It's time that coat of modesty get's dropped. It doesn't fit , anymore

Martin.

This is a very timely thread as a macro is next on my list.

Mr L has succinctly explained the advantages of the longer macro lenses, but what do the shorter ones have going for them (other than size and price)?

I've got the DA35 and D-FA100 macros.

The DA35 is a fantastic lens that you can walk around with all day long when travelling light - just like having a film camera with a 50mm lens. It excels as a general purpose lens to the extent that it's dislodged my FA43 as my default lens and I've barely used the 1:1 macro feature yet!

Unlike most "standard" lenses though you can just keep moving closer, and closer, and closer to your subject - until the front element is almost touching it in fact. This gives you the option of being able to take some very interesting perspectives in your everyday photography and it's great with flowers and other non-nervous subjects.

For things like insects that are more likely to object to having their photos taken then a longer lens (like the 100mm ones) is required. This allows you to get exactly the same magnification but with a longer distance between you and your subject. The longer lenses can also make for good portrait lenses but, as others have mentioned, can be a little too sharp for their own good (the FA77 is much better at them to be honest). Of course the longer lenses are also less useful as a day-long-walk-around lens than the DA35.

So there's no real "better or worse" focal length to buy - just one that suits your own needs the best. I have no intention of getting rid of either of mine

Your answer is getting me closer to what I am trying to understand. Still....
I cant imagine what is different in the pic taken with Macro 35 and my Pentax lense at about 35.....at the same place (the same object) Can you explane or show me this ? Macro is even sharper? What else????

I am trying to understand, WHAT can be done with one and another Only so I can figure out, what I do prefer
It seemes to me that I am moving towards 35 This everyday use sounds good! As I said, I am not for bugs. And I do have Sigma for close ups taken from greater distances.

[quote:3496ace15f="Malo1961
for instance: a coin with a diameter of 2 cm will be reproduced exactly the same size. Martin.

[/quote]same size on the sensor/film !? Yes? So it is on BIG on paper/screen.

Aiki,

Macro lenses will of course give a similar picture to an ordinary lens of the same focal length, but there are other characteristics that make a macro lens better for close-up work.

1 They focus VERY close.
2 They are always very sharp.
3 They will usually have a flat plane of focus, so that if you are copying a document it will be sharp even in the corners.

G

Oh yeah yeah, you guys teasing my smoke and wine huh? I have been thinking of getting an airgun now to grab some shots in the shed of shattering objects, I wonder what jokes they are going to originate

A macro lens will be optimised for best performance on the macro end of its focussing range. This leads, in theory, to a compromise at the 'normal' focussing distances.

In practise, I doubt you'd ever notice it.

Just a little comparison

My SMC A50mm 10p Piece at minimum focus distance of 45cm
[IMG]http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/manix_zero/Closer/Photo-2-1.jpg[/IMG]SMC A50mm @f5.6

My Tamron 70-300mm at 300mm minimum focus distance of 95cm
[IMG]http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/manix_zero/Closer/Photo-1-2-2.jpg[/IMG]Tamron 70-300mm @300mm f5.6 (forgive camera shake)

My Nikkor 55mm macro with AI-PK Adapter (optics removed) min distance 10cm
[IMG]http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/manix_zero/Closer/Photo-1-5.jpg[/IMG]Nikkor 55mm @ f5.6

The Nikkor is a great macro lens but at 10cm focus distance I'm certain even plants start getting nervous. The Tamron is really difficult to hand hold for macro shots and almost as bad on a tripod due to size and you have to be in the next field. The shot from the A50 is just to show what a difference that close focus ability makes.

If I was buying a macro lens I'd be looking at the 100mm-ish lenses (in fact I regularly search e-bay for Tamron 90mm Macro lenses as a cheaper alternative) Mainly to extend the focus distance a little but also so that I can have a "nice" portrait lens for free!

Cheerz MZ

With macro lenses you might find that a manual focus one will be fine. It will for static subjects such as plants. Maybe not for butterflies and insects in general, AF can be handy there.

For static subjects a sturdy tripod is essential to avoid camera shake and to ensure accurate focusing.

This is so absolutely true John. I still remember the first time you stressed this point and I went out and got myself a proper sturdy tripod and immediately I started noticing a huge difference in the outcome of the images. Its amazing how when doing macro work even a soft touch of the shutter release button affects the focusing. When you called my attention to these details I started putting my efforts on these little things and brushed up my technique and the difference was totally amazing.

Not that I have many shots to prove it but I could definitely see where I was going wrong. Even my moon shots were getting affected by this.

So a big thank you for that. One of the most important advice I have received here amongst quite a few that has helped me improve my technique.

Now whether I am ready for a D700 or not that is a different question, and may be left for some other time. Ooops, just joking guys, please hold your guns.

Seriously this is just a joke, please do not misinterpret it. Couldn't help after the last couple of days's furore in the forum