If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can somebody explain ....
I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused
about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Thanks for any help - macro really us uncharted territory for me, although I consider myself fairly clued up in other areas :-) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Thanks for any help - macro really us uncharted territory for me, although I consider myself fairly clued up in other areas :-) A "true" macro will reproduce a life size image on the recording media. On film that means a one inch bug will appear to be exactly one inch long on the negative. That is 1:1 ratio At a 1:2 or 0.5X, the bug would be ½ inch long on the negative. Many "macro" lenses need a extension which may or may not come with the lens to active the full 1:1. Digital does not come into play here as they are taking about the size of the image on the media so a 1:1 image on a 8X10 negative will be the same size, but include a subject area of 8X10 inches as a 35 mm camera image buy the 35mm image will not cover as much area and you digital may cover even less. Next thing to think about is the fact that there appears to be no legal definition of "macro" so you will find some manufacturers using the term loosely to refer to anything that may take a close up. Zoom lenses with the ability to focus reasonably close are often called macro, especially if they have a special setting to allow them to focus close. They may not focus close enough to get anywhere near life size 1:1. Also worth noting is that most true macro lenses are very sharp at normal distances and have been optimized for close work so they are outstanding at those distances. They also are usually corrected for a very flat field so when you are copying something flat like a stamp it will be sharp from the center to the edge, most lenses will not do that if you add extension tubes or close up lenses to focus that close. Good Luck -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Thanks for any help - macro really us uncharted territory for me, although I consider myself fairly clued up in other areas :-) A "true" macro will reproduce a life size image on the recording media. On film that means a one inch bug will appear to be exactly one inch long on the negative. That is 1:1 ratio At a 1:2 or 0.5X, the bug would be ½ inch long on the negative. Many "macro" lenses need a extension which may or may not come with the lens to active the full 1:1. Digital does not come into play here as they are taking about the size of the image on the media so a 1:1 image on a 8X10 negative will be the same size, but include a subject area of 8X10 inches as a 35 mm camera image buy the 35mm image will not cover as much area and you digital may cover even less. Next thing to think about is the fact that there appears to be no legal definition of "macro" so you will find some manufacturers using the term loosely to refer to anything that may take a close up. Zoom lenses with the ability to focus reasonably close are often called macro, especially if they have a special setting to allow them to focus close. They may not focus close enough to get anywhere near life size 1:1. Also worth noting is that most true macro lenses are very sharp at normal distances and have been optimized for close work so they are outstanding at those distances. They also are usually corrected for a very flat field so when you are copying something flat like a stamp it will be sharp from the center to the edge, most lenses will not do that if you add extension tubes or close up lenses to focus that close. Good Luck -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:42:48 +0100, "Mike"
wrote: I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Thanks for any help - macro really us uncharted territory for me, although I consider myself fairly clued up in other areas :-) The 100mm macro is the way to go for you. The 1:1 means that an object is the same size on the image as it is in real life, 1:0.5 (or 0.5x) means that the object is 1/2 of life size. A true macro lens is 1:1 or better, Canon makes another macro lens that 1:1: - 1:5 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:42:48 +0100, "Mike"
wrote: I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Thanks for any help - macro really us uncharted territory for me, although I consider myself fairly clued up in other areas :-) The 100mm macro is the way to go for you. The 1:1 means that an object is the same size on the image as it is in real life, 1:0.5 (or 0.5x) means that the object is 1/2 of life size. A true macro lens is 1:1 or better, Canon makes another macro lens that 1:1: - 1:5 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Go for the 100mm for macro. It is a very good macro and pretty good portrait lens (on film). The crop makes it a bit severe for portrait, and you'll need a lot of room ... the result will be a bit flat looking for a head and shoulders shot. In macro, it is generally accepted that 1:2 (0.5x) or better is a 'macro' lens, but most claim 1:1 or better is the real deal. On film 1:1 means a 1/2 inch long feature (shot at 1:1) will be 1/2 inch long on the film itself (same for digtital wrt the sensor of course, but meaningless once stored). This means a lot of detail is captured. Even if the 50mm were 1:1, 100mm is better as it gives you more working room in front of the lens to get light in there. Pick up a basic (low cost) 50mm f/1.8 and you will have a very decent 1.5x portrait lens, or even an f/1.4 if that little bit more light and shallower DOF is important to you. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Go for the 100mm for macro. It is a very good macro and pretty good portrait lens (on film). The crop makes it a bit severe for portrait, and you'll need a lot of room ... the result will be a bit flat looking for a head and shoulders shot. In macro, it is generally accepted that 1:2 (0.5x) or better is a 'macro' lens, but most claim 1:1 or better is the real deal. On film 1:1 means a 1/2 inch long feature (shot at 1:1) will be 1/2 inch long on the film itself (same for digtital wrt the sensor of course, but meaningless once stored). This means a lot of detail is captured. Even if the 50mm were 1:1, 100mm is better as it gives you more working room in front of the lens to get light in there. Pick up a basic (low cost) 50mm f/1.8 and you will have a very decent 1.5x portrait lens, or even an f/1.4 if that little bit more light and shallower DOF is important to you. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Basically, I'd like to know about the ratios that are often quoted alongside these lenses. What does 0.5x or 1:1 actually mean? I'm considering the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM because everything I've read is good. I'm not sure how useful it would be as a portrait lens though because it's quite long and there's the multiplier factor to consider as well. The 50mm macros I've seen seem to quote a 0.5x - does that mean it's inferior for macro work (but more useful for portrait)? Go for the 100mm for macro. It is a very good macro and pretty good portrait lens (on film). The crop makes it a bit severe for portrait, and you'll need a lot of room ... the result will be a bit flat looking for a head and shoulders shot. In macro, it is generally accepted that 1:2 (0.5x) or better is a 'macro' lens, but most claim 1:1 or better is the real deal. On film 1:1 means a 1/2 inch long feature (shot at 1:1) will be 1/2 inch long on the film itself (same for digtital wrt the sensor of course, but meaningless once stored). This means a lot of detail is captured. Even if the 50mm were 1:1, 100mm is better as it gives you more working room in front of the lens to get light in there. Pick up a basic (low cost) 50mm f/1.8 and you will have a very decent 1.5x portrait lens, or even an f/1.4 if that little bit more light and shallower DOF is important to you. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike" wrote in message ...
I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. .... I'll comment only on the portrait part of your question. A slight telephoto is good for portraits for a number of reasons. 1. It lowers the depth of field at close ranges so you can isolate your subject from the background more easily. 2. It prevents the lens distortion that one gets with wide angle lenses where, for example, a person's nose may show up bigger because it's closer to the lens than, say, the ears. It does this because of point 3. If you stand too close to the subject, you get that lens distortion. 3. It allows you to stand back a bit from the subject and fill the frame with head or head and shoulders without being in the subject's face. I think that in the 35mm world, 75-100 mm lenses are commonly used for portraits. Alan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike" wrote in message ...
I'm interested in using my 10D for some macro pictures but I am confused about which lens to get. I admit I don't understand much about macro - never having tried it before. I'd like to get a decent lens for this because I can use it for portrait work. .... I'll comment only on the portrait part of your question. A slight telephoto is good for portraits for a number of reasons. 1. It lowers the depth of field at close ranges so you can isolate your subject from the background more easily. 2. It prevents the lens distortion that one gets with wide angle lenses where, for example, a person's nose may show up bigger because it's closer to the lens than, say, the ears. It does this because of point 3. If you stand too close to the subject, you get that lens distortion. 3. It allows you to stand back a bit from the subject and fill the frame with head or head and shoulders without being in the subject's face. I think that in the 35mm world, 75-100 mm lenses are commonly used for portraits. Alan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
someone please explain ISO and exposure | Martin Lynch | Digital Photography | 8 | October 22nd 04 05:02 PM |
JPEG compression options -- can anybody explain? | Beowulf | Digital Photography | 3 | August 4th 04 02:17 AM |