Theme: Contest #15, November, 2007

[and]

*homer voice* voooigtlaaandeer.....aaaggggahhhhh.... */homer voice*

[atupdate]

Guess I'll be sitting this one out, as the only "macro" lens I have is the DA18-55 kit. No idea if it meets the challenge magnification requirements and I don't plan on spending much time trying to figure it out. Good luck to those that do enter.

Tim

PS: Mo, how about a Bigma challenge next month? I don't have one of those either.

[m8o]

Originally Posted by mtnbearhug

Are you talking about the Kit 18-55 lens?? I can't see where mine goes any lower then 3.5... let along 1:1... Am I really being that blind????
Mo?? or anyone.. some clarification on this would GREAT.... Sorry to start such a stir..
Kim...

Kim, I sent you a PM.

[Buddha Jones]

MACRO!!! Sweeeeeet!!

[Finn]

Originally Posted by mtnbearhug

Are you talking about the Kit 18-55 lens?? I can't see where mine goes any lower then 3.5... let along 1:1... Am I really being that blind????

Yes, there really are too many ratio's flying around, aren't there? That 1:3.5 on the lens refers to the maximum aperture (i.e. lens opening) of f/3.5.

Imagine if you were to remove the sensor from the camera and lay it on a table (not recommended ), and then lay something (e.g. a flower) on it, the resulting image would take up as much of the sensor as the flower did. A 1:1 macro lens imitates this process while keeping the sensor nicely tucked away in the camera, by transmitting the image to the sensor at exactly the size it is in real life.

In other words, a 1:1 macro photo of an object 10mm across will take up 10mm of the sensor.

More confused now? Sorry.

[Finn]

I should mention that because of the APS-C sensor size on a dslr, a 1:1 macro shot will "look" more magnified than it will on film, because a 35mm frame is so much bigger. They are both, however, 1:1 magnification.

[Lowell Goudge]

Originally Posted by m8o

Me thinks the folks in the southern hemisphere have a distinct advantage in this challenge... it's going to be hard for any of us in the northern hemisphere to come across a flower to shoot a macro of... (plenty with my Tamron, but that's 1:3.9 only )

I don't know about you, but it was snowing in toronto yesterday, i'm sure snowflakes are just as interesting as insect's eyes

[Lowell Goudge]

I will start this by saying I am not sure yet I will enter, but, perhaps to keep everyone honest, the submission should be full frame only, no cropping.

That is the only way to ensure that there is a good ability to judge the image is 1/3 life size on the sensor, or larger.

People also need to recognize just because they use a macro lens, it does not automatically qualify as a macro shot. Most macro lenses, if they specify magnification ratio, specify the maximum magnification at minimum focus distance.

This (the 1:3 ratio) might be a somewhat difficult rule to enforce in practical terms

[matiki]

Originally Posted by and

A reverse adapter lets you mount a lens backwards on another lens, typically a 50mm lens. lets say you use the kit lens and then put a reversed 50mm on it. The 50mm acts as a magnifying glass. Bellows is another way to get more magnification. extension tubes is another. 50mm extension tubes on a 50mm lens gives 1:1 magnification.

There are many ways of achieving the same thing. In your case I think i would go for closeup filter which fit well with the 50-200. I find the 50-200 to be very good optically and have very nice bokeh and goes good with closeup filters. Although this will not give you 1:1.

There's actually two different ways to do that.

There's a reverse mount adapter (directly reverse mounts a lens to your camera body), and there's a reverse coupler adapter (reverse mounts a lens to another lens).

I use a reverse coupler for 1:1 but you have to get so close... 1-2" focusing distance. Yuk.

[and]

Ah, indeed. Thanks for the clarification.

[Finn]

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

I will start this by saying I am not sure yet I will enter, but, perhaps to keep everyone honest, the submission should be full frame only, no cropping.

But how is copping to make the subject larger in the frame dishonest? Resized to 800px, why would it matter what the original image dimension was?

[LaRee]

I own two macro lenses the Tamron 90mm and the Voigtlander 125, and I love macro photography. But as far as ratio's to make it a *true* macro, you've confused me. I can't just go find a nice subject, get close, shoot it with one of these lenses and call it a macro?

[and]

Originally Posted by LaRee

I own two macro lenses the Tamron 90mm and the Voigtlander 125, and I love macro photography. But as far as ratio's to make it a *true* macro, you've confused me. I can't just go find a nice subject, get close, shoot it with one of these lenses and call it a macro?

I believe they are talking about some manufacturers (read: sigma) tendency of putting "Macro" in the name of a lens that doesnt do 1:1 like a dedicated macro lens does. So then the question becomes, when is it macro? Could Pentax call the DA 16-45 "DA 16-45 f4 Macro" ? if there is no definition of what is macro then everything could be called macro. A lot of compact digital cameras have macro modes of varying magification. If thats macro then what is 1:1? some people call that true macro, to distinguish between that and all the other macro lenses out there.

lastly I must give you a nod as a fellow member of the Voigtlander society Just be happy you have the most kickass macro there is Note that Voigtlander has a 180mm lens that Sigma would probably call "macro" but Voigtlander more correctly calls it "close-focus" since it doesnt do 1:1 like the 125 SL does.

[Finn]

Originally Posted by and

A lot of compact digital cameras have macro modes of varying magification. If thats macro then what is 1:1? some people call that true macro, to distinguish between that and all the other macro lenses out there.

Well, for a compact camera to have a "true" 1:1 macro, it would have to have ridiculously large magnification, because the sensor is so small.

[code4code5]

I have an old 35-105mm zoom that shows a macro ratio of 1:5. If I'm not mistaken, would that translate to a 1:2.5 ratio on the K100D's sensor?