I go back to books, websites are well, unreliable, no editors. The
books I read in the 70's were quite specific, about the magnification
range for "true" macro photography, though flatness of field was also a
requirement for a lens to be considered a true Macro lens. As
manufactures started labeling just about every close focusing lens a
Macro the situation became quite a bit muddier
Jens Bladt wrote:
It is.
It seems that there's an acknowledged definition that "True Macro" means at
least lifesize reproduction in the camera sensor or on the film.
On this page: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/macro.html I found
this:
"The term "macro" is used very loosely and tends to mean any photographic
situation where you get close to the subject.
Real macro photography is where you are working around 1:1 ratio and closer
thereby giving an image on film that is equal in size or larger than the
subject being photographed. The range from life size on film (1:1) up to ten
times enlargement on film (10:1) is be the strict definition of macro
photography. The range from 1:10 (1/10 life size on film) to 1:1 on film
should properly be called "close-up" photography.
Most lenses don't get very close at all so that close-up you tried of that
nice flower or interesting bug often turns out disappointing. Zoom lenses
usually have a "macro" setting where they may get close enough to give maybe
1:4 ratio (image on film is 1/4 the size of the subject). Any normal 4"x6"
print made from that negative will yield a picture of the subject about life
size due to the approximately 4x enlargement needed to make the print. But
if it was a small flower/bug it still will be a small flower/bug on the
print"
However, this doesn't stop lens manufacturers marketing their lenses to
their liking :-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. januar 2006 15:50
Til: [email protected]
Emne: Re: SV: Macro in A 70-210 f/4 ?
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).
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
