Thanks JCO, I wasn't thinking on the 1:1 thing. (So what else's new?) I've been playing with a 90 macro Sigma and 50 with a tube. The 90's a bit long but it does give room for light/flash. I'll have to get both outside when it stops raining :-( and see how they do. I'm getting pretty lathered up about the Tamron 90 SP but it's way too pricey to buy and then not use much.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Stupid Question #999, Macro lenses on ist-D > > > No, it still would be a 1:1 Macro because macro reproduction > ratios are independent of format. It only means the ratio of > the image size to the object size. > > While the angle of view would be similar to a 75mm lens on 24x36 format > at INFINITY, the extension and magnification would not be the same > as a 75mm lens on 24x36mm with objects in the macro distance range. So I > think > you are just better off calling it a 50mm 1:1 lens on APS. > > And I agree with you completely, a 50mm Macro seems like it would > be excellent on APS, 90 or 100 would be too long in a lot of cases. > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:48 PM > To: PDML > Subject: Stupid Question #999, Macro lenses on ist-D > > > On the *ist D wouldn't a 50mm 1:1 Macro lens be roughly equivilent to a > 75mm 1.5:1 on a 35mm? Or, put another way: To achieve 1:1 couldn't you > be 1.5x farther away? I don't mean to, and hope I won't, start the > equiv./crop factor/mag. factor/DOF wars again! It just seems to me that > a 90 or 100 macro would actually be rather long on the D. Not having > very steady hands I wonder if I could hand hold a longer lens properly? > > Don (My Mom said asking stupid questions is how I learn!) 8-) >
