No, Leica says 1:3 with adapter, without it's just a portrait lens. Nothing new here and I don't need Leica to interpret "1:3".
What I was referring to is the fact that Leica includes "Macro" in the name of the lens, but I think you knew that.
However, if you wanna get into semantics, try this: From Wikipedia:
Macro photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The ratio of the subject size on the film plane (or sensor plane) to the actual subject size is known as the reproduction ratio. Likewise, a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios greater than 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1.[6][7][8][9]
Outside of technical photography and film-based processes, where the size of the image on the negative or image sensor is the subject of discussion, the finished print or on-screen image more commonly lends a photograph its macro status.
For example, when producing a 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print using 135 format film or sensor, a life-size result is possible with a lens having only a 1:4 reproduction ratio."
I shoot close-ups mostly between 1:3 and 1:2. Even if I PP to 300dpi for printing, the reproduction ratio of the result is far greater than 1:1.
So the question is not
just about the reproduction ratio of the lens; it's about which part of the reproduction process one considers to be the result--on the sensor, on the monitor, or whatever other medium one chooses.
If you go by the classic definition, "capable of reproduction ratios
greater than 1:1," then the Canon MP-E 65 is the only FF 35mm
standalone SLR lens I know of that qualifies as a macro lens.
At any rate, if you still feel the need to "win" the discussion, knock yerself out; I won't be reading.
