do i need a macro lens?

kevinpw

i was reading this article: http://digital-photography-school.com/three-lenses-every-photographer-should-own

it says that one of the lenses every photographers should own is a macro lens. I actually don't really understand what it says by the ability to create 1:1 magnification. i understand what it does by looking at its end results, but technically i don't understand what the difference is between macro and non-macro lenses.

i read a wikipedia on macro lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography) and it says that "the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed." So, is that not what non-macro lenses do? If I'm looking at a person through my Nikon 35mm, she's not the same size on the image as she is in person...? What does that mean? My own sentence is confusing me.

It sounds cool to have a macro lens. Then I can take pictures of objects in great detail. Not sure if I really NEED it though. Right now I have an 18-200mm f/3.5 and a 35 mm f/1.8. I was considering getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 (which costs an arm and a leg...), but this article makes me consider a macro lens now.

Thanks for any help!

CyberSteak

kevinpw wrote:

i was reading this article: http://digital-photography-school.com/three-lenses-every-photographer-should-own

it says that one of the lenses every photographers should own is a macro lens. I actually don't really understand what it says by the ability to create 1:1 magnification. i understand what it does by looking at its end results, but technically i don't understand what the difference is between macro and non-macro lenses.

i read a wikipedia on macro lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography) and it says that "the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed." So, is that not what non-macro lenses do? If I'm looking at a person through my Nikon 35mm, she's not the same size on the image as she is in person...? What does that mean? My own sentence is confusing me.

It sounds cool to have a macro lens. Then I can take pictures of objects in great detail. Not sure if I really NEED it though. Right now I have an 18-200mm f/3.5 and a 35 mm f/1.8. I was considering getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 (which costs an arm and a leg...), but this article makes me consider a macro lens now.

Thanks for any help!

I'll let someone else explain the technical side of things. Actually it might have been a better idea to put this in the Macro section of the forums. I will say this though. A dedicated macro lens isn't needed. You could make do with a diopter attached to any of your other lenses (using a cheap step down/up ring for the different sizes). I have one for sale so after finding out what you need to know, if your interested in going that route...:D

Art Scott

macro is for small objects....not people or even dogsized subjects......most macto lens are actually somewhere beteween 1:2 to 1:5 lifesize......that actually equates to approx 1/2 to 1/5th lifesize.......at a set working distance and I believe that to be the minimum working distance.....so for example the Sigma 105 macro has a working distance of 1 foot 6 inches .....so when photoing say a penny or dime from a distnce of 1 foot 6 inches you will get a 1:1 or life sized image on the memory card or film.......now at waht size print is that image still lifesized....I berlieve at 4x6 inches when you start enlarging the subject image of course is going to be larger........

It is macro lenses that allow us to count the parts of a flys eye or the pollen dust on a flowers stamen........look at the forum Holy Macro to see good macros and also good close up photography.........close up would be from lenses that are not 1:1......1:1 is true macro or in Nikon Speak Micro........

craig_d

If you don't see why you need a macro lens, then you don't need one and shouldn't worry about it.

A true 1:1 macro lens is able to focus at much closer distances than most lenses, and this allows it to achieve much greater magnification than other lenses of similar focal length.

"1:1" means the image of an object on the sensor (not in the viewfinder) is the same size as the real object. So if you have a full-frame camera with a 36x24mm sensor, and you take a 1:1 macro picture of an object that is 24mm tall in reality, the image will occupy the full height of the frame.

There are also lenses that cannot do 1:1, but are marketed as "macro" lenses. To avoid these, make sure to look for "1:1" in the description or specs of the lens.

ziggy53

A "true" 1:1 macro lens will image a 24mm subject at close distance and the subject will fill the vertical frame on a FF imager. This is approximately the diameter of a US quarter-dollar.

For a crop 1.5x or 1.6x imager a US dime will fill the vertical frame (approximately) at 1:1 magnification.

A true macro lens also tends to have very low distortion characteristics as well as very high resolution and an aperture usable at small openings (to increase DOF). It's actually rather hard to find a true 1:1 macro lens of poor optical quality.

There are also "marketing" macro lenses, and many zoom lenses have the word "Macro" in their description. These lenses will generally produce an image which, when printed at snapshot size, will approximate a lifesize representation of the subject. I am not aware of "any" zoom lenses that allow a true 1:1 image magnification, so these lenses do not meet the criteria for a true macro. These "marketing" macro lenses are generally not of the same optical resolution as a true macro and lack contrast too.

BigAl

To add to what Ziggy said, here is an example taken with a Sigma 105mm macro lens on a 1.6x crop camera (22mm sensor) at 1:1.

kevinpw

craig_d wrote:

If you don't see why you need a macro lens, then you don't need one and shouldn't worry about it.

yeah i know... i agree with that. although after looking at that fortune cookie picture, i thought it'd be cool to take pictures like that i'm not interested in bugs or anything like that.

the article also says that a macro lens can be a good portrait lens. what do you guys think of this?

kevinpw

ziggy53 wrote:

There are also "marketing" macro lenses, and many zoom lenses have the word "Macro" in their description. These lenses will generally produce an image which, when printed at snapshot size, will approximate a lifesize representation of the subject. I am not aware of "any" zoom lenses that allow a true 1:1 image magnification, so these lenses do not meet the criteria for a true macro. These "marketing" macro lenses are generally not of the same optical resolution as a true macro and lack contrast too.

ooohh i am very glad that you mentioned that because i was just looking at this: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-5-Macro-Nikon/dp/B000UC26CS/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1266640003&sr=8-16

would that be one of the marketing lenses you talk about? thanks a lot

kevinpw

BigAl wrote:

To add to what Ziggy said, here is an example taken with a Sigma 105mm macro lens on a 1.6x crop camera (22mm sensor) at 1:1.

hmm ok.. so if i took the same picture with a non-macro lens, this would just look smaller?

rookieshooter

Nikon 105mm macro lens is the best macro AND portrait lens I've ever used.

Portrait


Macro


And it's affordable for an f2.8 ED VR lens too. A must buy.

craig_d

kevinpw wrote:

the article also says that a macro lens can be a good portrait lens. what do you guys think of this?

Depends. If the focal length and maximum aperture are appropriate for portraits, then yes, if the goal is to have extremely sharp, detailed portraits that reveal every imperfection of the subject's skin.

Macro lenses can be wonderful for many applications. I've taken some great long-distance landscape shots using a 100mm macro lens.

The basic issue here is, as Ziggy noted, that macro lenses tend to be very sharp optically, with minimal abberations. The thing about portraits is that you sometimes don't want to be that sharp; a little bit of softness can help to smooth out skin textures and make a more flattering image. Also, for portraits, one often wants apertures wider than f/2.8, and most macro lenses are f/2.8 or f/3.5.

BigAl

kevinpw wrote:

hmm ok.. so if i took the same picture with a non-macro lens, this would just look smaller?

Yes, but more importantly, you will see more gradations on the tape, giving you an idea of the actual magnification.

BigAl

rookieshooter wrote:

Nikon 105mm macro lens is the best macro AND portrait lens I've ever used.

Portrait

rookieshooter: snap



This was f/4 though, Sigma 105 macro.

kevinpw

wow 105mm for portraits? at 1.5x crop ratio that's about 160mm right? is that convenient to use as portrait? you would have to stand a little farther right?

ziggy53

I ended up buying a used Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 Macro 1:1. Although the front element is awfully recessed, and that reduces the actual distance from the front of the lens to the subject, the lens is very high quality optically and at the apertures I normally use for the lens it is extremely sharp and contrasty.

In addition to being a very nice macro lens, it truly is a very nice portrait and landscape lens too. The low curvilinear distortion means that it stitches nicely for stitched panorama use when I want a very wide FOV.

paddler4

First, I'll agree with Craig: if you don't have something you can't do without a macro lens, you don't need one.

the only reason to buy a macro lens (a real one, 1:1, not one of the many that has "macro" on the label) is to take very close-up pictures. For example, here is one that is about 1:1. taken with a 50D and a 60mm macro:



Put an extension tube on, and you can get closer yet. You can see many that are closer than 1:1 on the macro forum.

Yes, macro lenses can be used for portraits because their focal lengths are about right (60mm for crop, 100mm for FF) and they tend to have good bokeh, but I don't know that I would choose one specifically for portraits if I were not interested in macro work.