Macro


Status
Not open for further replies.

marklim

New Member
Jan 4, 2006
267
0
0
Bukit Timah
#1
Hi guys,

Actually, i don't really understand what does macro lens does ? it makes the subject big ? If it makes the subject big, is it the same as getting a 600mm to fill the frame with the subject ? can someone explain this to me ? thank you guys. :dunno:

regards,
mark
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#2
marklim said:
Hi guys,

Actually, i don't really understand what does macro lens does ? it makes the subject big ? If it makes the subject big, is it the same as getting a 600mm to fill the frame with the subject ? can someone explain this to me ? thank you guys. :dunno:

regards,
mark
Macro is a specialised lens to take close ups of various objects. For example, take a small spider's eyes. Under the human eye we can't really see the spider's eyes unless we go very very close to it, same for the macro lens. It's able to zoom in on the spider and magnify it to make it larger, so the outcome is an enlarged close up view of the spider with its eyes prominently seen.

A regulars lens is TOTALLY different and cannot be compared to macro as macro enlarges the tiny details. Don't say a 600mm lens, even a 1200mm cannot do the job that macro lens can. These regular super telephoto lens only bring your subject much closer as it does for typical zoom lens.
 

marklim

New Member
Jan 4, 2006
267
0
0
Bukit Timah
#3
Snoweagle said:
Macro is a specialised lens to take close ups of various objects. For example, take a small spider's eyes. Under the human eye we can't really see the spider's eyes unless we go very very close to it, same for the macro lens. It's able to zoom in on the spider and magnify it to make it larger, so the outcome is an enlarged close up view of the spider with its eyes prominently seen.

A regulars lens is TOTALLY different and cannot be compared to macro as macro enlarges the tiny details. Don't say a 600mm lens, even a 1200mm cannot do the job that macro lens can. These regular super telephoto lens only bring your subject much closer as it does for typical zoom lens.
Hmm, pardon my ignorance. But if i use a macro lens to enlarge the spider's eyes, isn't it the same as using a 600mm to zoom all the way to the eye ? :dunno:
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#4
marklim said:
Hmm, pardon my ignorance. But if i use a macro lens to enlarge the spider's eyes, isn't it the same as using a 600mm to zoom all the way to the eye ? :dunno:
No, only macro lens have to ability to focus at extreme closeness, as close as only a few cm away. A regular lens cannot do that as once u get a bit closer to the subject, it cannot focus anymore.
 

marklim

New Member
Jan 4, 2006
267
0
0
Bukit Timah
#5
ok. assuming i stand 2feet away from a spider using a 200mm and i stand 1 feet away using a 100mm macro. what would be the difference ?
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#6
marklim said:
ok. assuming i stand 2feet away from a spider using a 200mm and i stand 1 feet away using a 100mm macro. what would be the difference ?
Depending on the minimum focusing distance of the 200mm lens. I dun think the 200mm lens can focus at 2 feet away, you still cannot get the closeness of a 100mm macro. I've used the 100mm macro before and results are stunning!
 

Jul 31, 2005
768
0
0
Bt Batok
#14
the problem with ur [600mm fill frame] idea is tt the 600mm cant focus close enough to fill the frame with the subject, meaning the subject has to be at least X meters away for the lens to focus but at tt distance the frame wont be filled. think of it this way, if wat u said is true, wont i be able to point a ef1200mm at drop of blood 5cm away and take a photo of the red blood cells? obviously not

a marco lens is able to focus close enough for its particular focal length to produce the [frame filling] img. so a 60mm marco will focus closer thn a 100mm marco but both will produce the same sized img only tt with the 100mm ur standing further away.

1:1 simply means tt the focused img produced by the lens is the same size as the real life img. example: a 5cm long spider will be 5cm long on the film.
 

mmk

New Member
Apr 29, 2004
143
0
0
#15
Hi prata (kosong or with egg?) LOL

Joke aside. Just to check with you, you mention that in 1:1 lens, a 5cm long subject will be 5cm long on the film. Is is the same as a 5cm long subject will be 5cm long in my viewfinder? Or whats the definition of "a 5cm long spider will be 5cm long on the film" in the digital world say a 1:1 macro lens on a full frame 5D dSLR. I mean at which rate I am viewing it on my monitor?

I am quite puzzled with this, anyone can help me? Sorry for the stupid question.
 

Jul 31, 2005
768
0
0
Bt Batok
#16
from secondary sch physics: at 2F, object size = img size. the img projected by the lens onto the sensor/film(full frame) will be the same size as the subject.

in conventional lenses, the img is smaller thn the object. like if u use a wide angle lens and take a pic of a room, the img of the room formed on the sensor is much much smaller thn the actual room.
 

#17
ok, i have a question as well, how come on specs for some macro lenses the minimum focusing distance is still like 30cm? according to the above i should be able to get centimeters away?

e.g.

AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Closest Marked Focus Dist [Macro Setting] : 0.31m/1.0ft
 

yanyewkay

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2004
3,924
0
0
Cons digger.
#18
Snoweagle said:
No, only macro lens have to ability to focus at extreme closeness, as close as only a few cm away. A regular lens cannot do that as once u get a bit closer to the subject, it cannot focus anymore.
my macro lens provides 1:2 reproduction but it's minimum focussing distance is ~1m.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#19
yanyewkay said:
my macro lens provides 1:2 reproduction but it's minimum focussing distance is ~1m.
Mine's 1:2.9 which estimates to around 1:3 and minimum focusing distance is 0.49m. Perhaps mine's magnification is smaller so need a closer focusing distance?
 

sumball

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,333
0
0
#20
wildstallion said:
ok, i have a question as well, how come on specs for some macro lenses the minimum focusing distance is still like 30cm? according to the above i should be able to get centimeters away?

e.g.

AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Closest Marked Focus Dist [Macro Setting] : 0.31m/1.0ft
I don't know why are you complaining about this, to me you should be happy for it instead. I believe a 180mm lens' minimum focusing distant is around 30cm too. Thats the main reason you gotta pay more for a 105mm lens than a 65mm lens because you are paying for the working distant!

Since you can get 1:1 at 31cm, why must you go beyond that :dunno: (eg 3cm :bsmilie: ) unless you lens is not a 1:1 lens but a >1:1. The, yes, there is reason for you to go closer. The Canon MP-E65mm lens. You get 5x or so but the working distant is terrible.

For butterflies shooters, why do they prefer a 180mm lens than a 90/100/105mm lenses since all these lenses give us 1:1 but the prince of a 180mm lens is double or the 90mm lens? Because of the working distant again;p .
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom