File :-(, x, )
Wide and Macro BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
Are most macro lens' generally good for Wide angle shots too?

Stupid question maybe.. but you know, still learnin'.

(Picture unrelated, but a great gig shot)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:08:02 22:53:21Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width709Image Height1037
>> Anonymous
?????
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
lolwut?
macro and wide angle are like polar opposites.
'macro' lenses are generally around the 85mm mark or above..
I own the 100mm f/2.8 which is one... I also have the 50mm f/1.8 but I don't really consider that a macro lens (since it can't focus all that close).
So yea.. wide angle is way different. On a cropped body usually around 10 or 12mm .. full frame good ones start at 14mm .. anything lower than that will have some pretty heavy ass distortion.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
The widest macro that I know if is about 30mm, but it is for crop sensors and I don't know if that has even been released yet. There are 50mm macros commonly available.

They are normal to medium telephoto normally, with some being a little longer.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>230150

i see... why do i keep finding Wide angle lens' with a macro function then?
>> Anonymous
All lenses have a macro focus distance. Is that what you mean?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>230152

What this one said:

>>230153

Remember also that macro lenses that are sold as such are generally made for 1:1 or greater magnification and to do so with great optical clarity and low distortion.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
Im presuming that the lens' ive seen just have a really wide focal range(?)

...trying to work out how to make this 18-135 into a macro LOL...
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>230152
Give an example of a wide angle macro lens.
Most are around 55mm at the widest.
If you see a zoom lens with "macro" on it, it probably doesn't go down to 1:1 reproduction ratio (true macro), and it gets closest at the telephoto end. Like a 28-80 macro, for instance, is only "macro" at 80mm.
>> Anonymous
Hey, while we're talking about macro lenses, can someone explain to me how a macro lens is different from other lenses?

I just don't quite get it.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>230164

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?pName=sigma-28mm-f18-ex-dg-asp-macro-af-wide-an
gle-for-sigma

That for one... theres loads of similar.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>230166
this is just me pulling shit out of my ass...
but i think it's due to the ability to focus very closely coupled with the length of the lens.
i'm pretty sure you can't get as close to the subject (in actual distance from end of lens to object) with a 70-200mm L series compared to my 100mm.
I also used a Tamron macro once which could get incredibly close, I had to be careful not to hit shit with the lens itself.

There's probably a lot more to it and or I'm way off, so don't take my word for it.. haha
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>230170
Check the reproduction ratio. Looks like it's 1:2.9 on that lens, which is good, and generally counts as macro, but is part of the tradeoff. You don't get quite as close as a lens that gets 1:1, and those tend to normal and up.
As to whether it's good as a wide angle or not, well, that's just going to depend on the lens. Generally a macro lens won't be quite as sharp as a non-macro prime of the same focal length, but they still tend to be really good.
>> Anonymous
>>230176
0/10
>> Anonymous
Macro, strictly speaking, means the lens offers 1:1 or greater magnification. For example, if you're shooting a twig two centimeters long, then the lens will be (in combination) long enough and focus close enough to project it onto the sensor large enough so the image of the twig will be two centimeters (life-size) or longer.

Since most people just care about getting relatively close pictures of flowers or bugs for art or entertainment, and most people are uninformed, and, manufacturers want money and like an uninformed public, any lens that focuses closer than is typical for its focal length is marketed as "macro," e.g. that Sigma. They're close enough for most people's purposes, but they aren't really "macro."

As I hinted at above, theoretically, a macro lens can be any focal length, so long as it focuses close enough to get that 1:1 magnification. The widest macro lens I know of is a 19/2.8 Macro-Nikkor (for some reason not "Micro-Nikkor" like the rest of Nikon's macro lenses, except the 35, 65, and 120mm companions in its series) that will cover 4x5. (Yes, you read that correctly.)

However, since it has twice the magnification, a 50mm lens needs to focus half as close as a 25mm, making it easier to design, and most people appreciate the extra working distance. So most macros for 135 format are made 50mm or longer.

>>230176
>Generally a macro lens won't be quite as sharp as a non-macro prime of the same focal length, but they still tend to be really good.

Really? I've always heard they're generally sharper.

>>230150
>wide angle is way different. On a cropped body usually around 10 or 12mm .. full frame good ones start at 14mm

That's ultrawide and not "usual." More like 17, 20, 24 for crop bodies.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>230184
yeah.. i stand corrected.
I'm horrible when it comes to photography terminology and any general technical knowledge. haha
I should stop informing people incorrectly.
>> Anonymous
Macro lenses used for portraits can be so sharp they are hard on some models. Unless a woman is young and has perfect skin all the blemishes show up, so usually a little softening or touch-up in post-processing to hide it is required to keep them happy.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>230184
Sorry, I meant at non-macro distances. But that's what I've heard from lens reviews, dunno about actual use since my macro is my only prime.
>>230190
And I've heard this too, so really, it probably just depends on the lens in question.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
For your guys info the Macro term is now deemed AS.
When the lens is used on its given sensor size (DX = 1.5x, others = 35mm)
If when a pic is printed at 4x6 if the object is larger than in real life then the lens is allowed to be called a "Macro" lens.
However IMO true macro's are 1:1.

However my Sigma 24mm f1.8 has roughly the same reproduction ratio as the 28mm f1.8, And it has to focus about 2cm away from the glass to get that reproduction ratio. So getting 1:1 wider than 35mm may actually not be possible lol.
>> Anonymous
>>230273
>a 19/2.8 Macro-Nikkor... that will cover 4x5

What has optical engineering done, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>230269

All macro lenses will be sharp like that. There aren't really any bad ones.
>> Anonymous
>>230273

Sigma sell a 30mm macro.
>> Anonymous
>>230287
yes
>> Anonymous
>>230307

I got that. But what is it about the design that allows them to do that? Where does the difference lie, technically speaking?
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>230313
You'd have to look up the designs. Extra parts and things, in other words, it's why they tend be bigger and heavier than the equivalent non-macro prime.
>> Anonymous
>>230313

They have a doohicky, silly.
>> Anonymous
>>230322

Is that related or perhaps attached -to- the dongle?
>> Anonymous
skinny puppy ftw!
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Canon Powershot S2 has "funny" macro. Closest focusing distance is something between zero and one centimeter. And if I remember correctly, it is at its widest focal lenght.
>> Anonymous
>>230453

The Fuji bridge cameras do that too, I think.
>> Anonymous
>>230313
focusing group is able to move much farther from the focal plane