[normhead]

Really? How about any of the K/M/A 100mm f4 macros or the FA 100mm f3.5. All maximum 0.5x magnification.

Added - the K/M 50mm f4 macros also.

Ancient history.

I was talking about what they do now, not the whole 100 years of the brand.

[stevebrot]

Ancient history.

I was talking about what they do now, not the whole 100 years of the brand.

Yep...not since about year 2000 or whenever the FA 100/3.5 Macro went out off market.


Steve

[Not a Number]

For the historical record I have scans of several technical bulletins published by Minolta probably in the early/mid 1960's judging from the equipment models pictured with them. Minolta Technical Bulletin E deals with "Close-Up and Macrophotography with the Minolta SR System":

Magnification Ratios

We should first establish a necessary arbitrary dividing line between close-up and macrophotography. Close-up can be said to range from 3 feet to distances close enough to give a picture 1/10th life-size or a 1:10 ratio. Macrophotography continues from 1/10th life-size images to about 25× magnifications. (25× life-size). The term magnification ratio simply indicates the direct relationship between image size and object size. A 1:1 magnification ratio indicates that the dimension of the image on the film is identical with that of the actual object. A 2:1 ratio describes a 2× magnification; the images size is twice that of the actual object.

Note the word arbitrary (emphasis mine).


BTW: the Technical Bulletin sums up the majority of macro options which hasn't changed all the much. Although not necessarily budget

[tibbitts]

Since as far as I know the first full-frame macro lens came in both 1:1 and 1:2 versions, it seems like at least 1:2 has to be included as "macro." Around Pentax forums, when it comes to lenses the 1950s seem to be considered like yesterday, so that definition is probably still applicable.

[normhead]

it seems like at least 1:2 has to be included as "macro."

Why? The term isn't copyrighted, camera companies can label anything they choose "macro".What is the benefit to including 1:2? People need to be warned when a lens they are connsidering for macro work is only 1:2. It's already enough wrk, to try and describe the issue. The Tech bulletin above has everything anyone needs to know about macro, (with exception of modern developments like stacking and pixel shift.)

I cannot tell you how P.O.'d I was when I bought my Sigma 70-300 and found out what they called macro. Part of my distrust of Sigma, is their "You have to read the fine print. " attitude. They are untrustworthy. Although it turns out, they are totally trustworthy, if you trust them to label a lens with 1:2 magnification a macro. It makes them price competitive, but not functionally competitive.

It's weird to me, hat people avoid technically defining an issue like this, where is the pay-off?

---------- Post added 12-28-20 at 07:56 AM ----------

For the historical record I have scans of several technical bulletins published by Minolta probably in the early/mid 1960's judging from the equipment models pictured with them. Minolta Technical Bulletin E deals with "Close-Up and Macrophotography with the Minolta SR System":

Magnification Ratios

We should first establish a necessary arbitrary dividing line between close-up and macrophotography. Close-up can be said to range from 3 feet to distances close enough to give a picture 1/10th life-size or a 1:10 ratio. Macrophotography continues from 1/10th life-size images to about 25× magnifications. (25× life-size). The term magnification ratio simply indicates the direct relationship between image size and object size. A 1:1 magnification ratio indicates that the dimension of the image on the film is identical with that of the actual object. A 2:1 ratio describes a 2× magnification; the images size is twice that of the actual object.

Note the word arbitrary (emphasis mine).


BTW: the Technical Bulletin sums up the majority of macro options which hasn't changed all the much. Although not necessarily budget

That's a great piece of information, it could be required reading for people wishing to discuss the topic. Notice after 1:1 it bereft mentions 2:1 lenses which also exist. And I've talked to those who maintain even 1:1 isn't true macro. The distinction t me would be, with 1:1 or higher magnification, you need special equipment. 1"2 can be just walk around. It's the difference between the using special technical equipment to get an image, and those just walking around with a camera taking pictures of smaller things. See aslyfox's post above to understand of the confusion caused by confusing one with the other.

[tryphon4]

By definition, macro photography means "between 1:1 and 10:1".
Beyond 10:1, we enter into micrography.
So 1:2 is not yet macro but in galleries like Flickr we find way more photos taken between 1:10 and 1:1 than between 1:1 and 10:1.

[normhead]

By definition, macro photography means "between 1:1 and 10:1".
Beyond 10:1, we enter into micrography.
So 1:2 is not yet macro but in galleries like Flickr we find way more photos taken between 1:10 and 1:1 than between 1:1 and 10:1.

Exactly. But for someone wanting to learn to do macro photography, taking images 1:2 to 1:10 teaches exactly nothing about macro photography. I can do that with my walk around lenses. To learn to do macro, you don't need to learn close up photography. You do need learn to produce images 10:1 to 1:1, or you shouldn't be calling your work macro. Sadly, all my small sensor cameras have "macro" settings, that are truly only close up settings. Some people get confused by this.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-28-2020 at 06:35 AM.

[Lowell Goudge]

One thing I am not sure is mentioned, is that on many of the newer Pentax bodies, I think starting with the k series, the camera body needs to have the lens contacts shorted to make it think ther is a lens attached. Many film era extension tubes have painted / anodized lens mounts and need to have the finish sanded off in order for the camera to allow the aperture to close down.

The other thing to remember is that the term macro is normally considered to be 1:1 reproduction ratio on the film / sensor. This is achieved by achieving focus with the lens to subject distance equal to 2x the native focal length and at the same time achieving equal subject to lens distance and lens to film/sensor distance As a result, short lenses have you working really really close to the subject. It may not be an issue, but it is something to consider. The longer the lens, the more distance you have. Also remember, close up lenses that add on to the front of the lens, actually work by reducing focal length in order to achieve close focus. Extension tubes work by increasing the spacing between lens to film/sensor offering better working distance.

The trade off is that with extension tubes you increase magnification by projecting the image to a larger area, and as many have noted the resulting reduction in overall lighting. Close up lenses increase magnification by reducing focal length, while not changing the lens opening (aperture) hence will give a brighter viewfinder image.

[tibbitts]

Maybe we just need to accept that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the fairly-recently-developed term "macro lens", and move on. From an historical perspective, does anyone know if any lenses were referred to as "macro" prior to the Makro-Kilar?

[stevebrot]

Maybe we just need to accept that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the fairly-recently-developed term "macro lens"

Yep...In AOC-land, the term is younger than I am, by about nine years*, and I am an still younger than dirt.


Steve

* Asahi Macro Takumar 50/4, 1964

[Not a Number]

The working definition of a macro lens that I'm familiar with:

Lens capable of infinity to at least 1:2 (0.5×) reproduction optimized for flat-field performance (center and edge/corner sharpness).

Things have been blurred further when lens makers starting labeling zoom lenses as "macro" or having a "macro" feature. This was mainly a marketing ploy in the feature wars. "Macro" usually means the minimum focusing distance under one meter and reproduction ratios from 1:10 to 1:3 depending on the widest angle of the lens. There are a few exceptions that are capable of 1:2 or 1:2 reproduction like some versions Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm zoom. These required setting the zoom control to a position where the internal optics could be shifted to a macro mode.

[Lowell Goudge]

Maybe we just need to accept that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the fairly-recently-developed term "macro lens", and move on. From an historical perspective, does anyone know if any lenses were referred to as "macro" prior to the Makro-Kilar?

Yep...In AOC-land, the term is younger than I am, by about nine years*, and I am an still younger than dirt.


Steve

* Asahi Macro Takumar 50/4, 1964

Using that infinitely reliable source (Wikipedia) shows that the macro-Kilar lens evolved in the 50’s as well as the Pentax macro tak, but the term photo macrography was first proposed in 1899, predating both lenses by at least 50 years.

However, given the current misuse of the term, I think any lens capable of close focusing, and yielding a reproduction ratio of at least 1:10 is probably the most market consistent use of the term today.

Funny though, my celestron C90 that can focus to 1 meter and is a 1 meter focal length is not referred to any where in the literature as a macro lens

[stevebrot]

Using that infinitely reliable source (Wikipedia) shows that the macro-Kilar lens evolved in the 50’s as well as the Pentax macro tak, but the term photo macrography was first proposed in 1899, predating both lenses by at least 50 years.

1955 for the Kilfitt Makro-Kilar 40/3.5 (D for 1:2 and E for 1:1) and 1964 for the Macro Takumar 50/4.0 (1:1).

I just took a look-see at the Wikipedia article on Macro Photography. It is definitely not to the usual standards and promotes multiple myths. I am shocked. The part you quote is accurate by much of the rest is really bad.


Steve

[tryphon4]

The book of monsters, written by David and Marian Fairchild, has been published in 1914.
Here is the camera:


You can read the book here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40035/40035-h/40035-h.htm


The handbook of micrography (written by H. Lloyd Hind and W. Brough Randles) has been published in 1913, but it is about micrography, not macro.

[35mmfilmfan]

Thank you all for this thread, especially the Title, and I can now confirm I am thoroughly confused !

Seriously, I shall continue to take whatever close-up photos I wish, and not worry my antient head about the definition of the technique. For me, the result is more important than the terminology.