File :-(, x, )
Telephoto vs. Macro Anonymous
Hi /p/, some of you may remember a thread I made a long while ago where I was arguing with my friend about white balance affecting RAW or not.

Anyway, now we're arguing about extreme close up shots, what most people call macro these days.

I think he's wrong, but can't really prove it and I'm not 100% sure anyway. He tells me that if you use a telephoto lens, like 300mm or longer and zoom in on a fly or whatever, it looks the same as if you would use a dedicated macro lens and were 1" away.

Now we lost ourselves in the argument, about the amount of detail resolved from taking it 5 FEET away vs. 1 INCH away, about how it's not lifesize how it's not 1:1.

I just think it's not the same because the perspective is different.

YOU-------OBJECT---------BACKGROUND
is not the same as
YOU-OBJECT-------BACKGROUND

We both lack the technical know how to explain our point of view, no pun intended, to each other.
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
most telephoto lenses cant focus close enough to reproduce at sizes a macro can.
>> Anonymous
The most common definition of a "macro" lens is any lens that provides magnification around 1:3 - 1:1, e.g. a fly that's 3 cm long is projected to an image 1 - 3 cm wide on the sensor. This is independent of the focal distance. A 50mm lens capable of that magnification would be called a "normal macro", and a 300mm lens would be a "telephoto macro".
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is taken with a dedicated macro lens.

Would a 30mm or + telephoto be able to get this kind of detail?
>> Anonymous
>>139108
its not about the focal length. non macro lenses CANT FOCUS CLOSE ENOUGH TO PRODUCE THE MAGNIFICATION RATIO A MACRO CAN.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I don't understand this "telephoto lens vs. macro lens" argument at all. It's not like these two characteristics are mutually exclusive.
>> Anonymous
>>139096
You're right. The subject doesn't matter though, but a wide angle lens does not give the same results as a telephoto lens.
>> Anonymous
>>139113

Okay, so while the macro and telephoto will both get the bug or whatever object in the entire frame. The macro will be able to go past 1:1 and get in even closer without cropping, is that it?
>> Anonymous
>>139119
not necessarily past 1:1. most macros nowadays only get to 1:3 or so, but yes. take for example, the Nikon 200mm macro can focus as close as 1.7ft away. the non macro 200mm can focus as close as 6.2ft away. thats the difference.
>> Anonymous
But if you get a really long lens, 400-600mm, wouldn't you be past 1:1 as well and get the same field of view as if you were up close and personal?
>> Anonymous
>>139132
I don't know of any lenses in the 400-600mm range that can focus close enough to achieve even 1:1 magnification.
>> Anonymous
>>139132
yes, if said lens could also focus at 1.7ft away.
but those lenses all have really big minimum focusing distances. the nikon 600mm has like 16ft or something
>> Anonymous
>>139133
>>139139

Ah, now I see the problem.

While we're on the subject, do extension tubes degrade image quality? There's nothing but air so it shouldn't, right?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>139140
Usually they don't. But with extension tubes (or a macro lens without floating elements, which is basically the same), you're using only the middle part of the image your lens projects (behold my insane mspaint skills, fig. b), so if your lens isn't sharp enough, it will be more apparent. Also, the amount of light reaching the sensor will be smaller for the same reason, so it may seem like the aperture got smaller.
>> Anonymous
So pretty much, dedicated macro lenses are just lenses that can focus a lot closer. And they happen to be sharp as a tack.
>> Anonymous
Well, macro-only lenses can't focus to infinity and can't take non-macro images, but the rest can, and often take great "normal" pics too. Example: the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro - telephoto (not majorly so) and also macro. Great lens all around.

But to put it side by side with a good zoom lens:

Canon 100mm macro has a minimum focus distance of 30 cm (which IIRC includes the lens in the length making it actually 15 cm), the 70-200 has a minimum focus of 120 cm. That's one hell of a difference
>> Anonymous
Well, I mean, for most people the 100mm macro you meant IS a macro. All the ones I'm looking at will focus to infinity, except the MPE which is the dedicated dedicated macro.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
wouldn't the tele flatten the z axis in a way that the marcro wouldn't?