Macro is one of those devalued terms. I always thought that Macro
photography started at a reproduction ration of about 1:2 to about 2:1.
Higher magnifications become micro photography.
Igor Roshchin wrote:
Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:37:21 -0800
John Whittingham wrote:
So, I am still a bit confused, why the lens is not called "macro"?
Because it is macro only @70mm?
A true Macro lens would be capable of a 1:1 life size or greater (on the film
negative) magnification and be genuine Macro, the 70-210 manages one quarter
of life size 1:4 and thus has a close focus ability (pseudo Macro)
Some Macro lenses such as SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/4 require the addition of a
extension tube (#3 IIRC) to achieve true Macro
The KMP site does not list this lens as having a macro capability
Many magnification ratios are listed for the lenses including the 70-210 @ 1:4
Hope this helps, best regards,
John
Yes, this makes it clearer. Thank you!
So, when Tamron or Sigma lenses are called "macro", but have a reproduction
ratio of 1:2 (say Tamron 70-300) or 1:2.9 (Sigma 28/1.8,
Tamron 28-300/3.5-5.6), - this is a frivolous use of the term.
They should've been called "close focus capable".
Correct?
I just found a similar definition in the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
It suggests that recently the term "macro" became used if
the 4"x6" (~10cmx15cm) print has at least 1:1 size of the object.
That might be explaining the loose usage of the word "macro"
by some manufacturers.
Thank
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
