Extension rings for macro

David Ruether wrote:

but ***sometimes*** some combinations
of a ***good*** zoom and an achromat (a 2-element close-up
lens attached to the front of the lens), when used at some FLs, and
with the lens stopped down quite a bit (and either on a tripod or with
flash to make that possible) can produce good sharpness with a
zoom for taking macro photos.

Yes, miracles do happen. EOS450D, EF-S 55-250mm IS + Raynox DCR-250
close-up lens:

http://i86.servimg.com/u/f86/12/46/16/36/flyhea10.jpg

(this is a 1:1 crop of the full picture). Btw with the above combination
I can reach a 2.7x scale (0.9mm field of view on a 25mm sensor)(475
pixels/mm)(but this is quite impractical in most cases).

OTOH this is only a miracle :-)
--
Bertrand

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...



There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0
makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar
compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it
is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to
the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist
on that distinction)).

Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in
full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't
understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with
it, but maybe I'm missing something..

This guy should also be a good portrait lens on
APS-C.

Yes, that's going to be my very next lens. Tamron makes some really nice
stuff, and their macro lenses are especially good. Pop Photo gives their new
60/2 high marks:
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lens...Di-II-Macro-AF

It's a bit pricey, and being brand new the prices haven't yet eased much --
but in the U.S., Tamron has a $25 rebate on this lens until the end of the
year.

* Neil Harrington wrote :
* David J. Littleboy wrote :

There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0
makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar
compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it
is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to
the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist
on that distinction)).

Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in
full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't
understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with
it, but maybe I'm missing something..
snip /

There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1
lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor
or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not
talking field of view, that's different.

--
Troy Piggins

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
* Neil Harrington wrote :
* David J. Littleboy wrote :

There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0
makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar
compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually,
it
is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due
to
the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely
insist
on that distinction)).

Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1
in
full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't
understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do
with
it, but maybe I'm missing something..
snip /

There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1
lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor
or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not
talking field of view, that's different.

As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on
the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's
increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of
view *is* what we're talking about.

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped
to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped
sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one.
This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect
due to the crop."

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:03:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
* Neil Harrington wrote :
* David J. Littleboy wrote :

There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0
makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar
compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually,
it
is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due
to
the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely
insist
on that distinction)).

Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1
in
full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't
understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do
with
it, but maybe I'm missing something..
snip /

There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1
lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor
or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not
talking field of view, that's different.

As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on
the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's
increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of
view *is* what we're talking about.

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped
to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped
sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one.
This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect
due to the crop."


The old macro definition of 1:1 for 35mm film no longer holds true to
various sensor sizes. That was only a convenient definition to
"standardize" a certain type of subject being photographed, an arbitrary
cut-off point to make communicating about various photography techniques
easier. Today it is safe to say that anything that is 1:1 when compared to
a 35mm film frame is also true macro-photography, no matter the sensor size
being used to record it. It's silly to use antiquated definitions that no
longer mean anything. There is no difference in the size of the resulting
subject's image when printed or displayed today if it is taken on a
full-frame sensor or a 1/2.5 sensor. The best you can do is use the old
35mm standard, just as you do for equivalent 35mm lens focal-lengths for
all cameras today.

You can, of course, also go buy a buggy-whip and try to drive your car with
it, but it's only going to make you look equally foolish and silly.

* Neil Harrington wrote :

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 20 lines snipped |=---]

There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1
lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor
or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not
talking field of view, that's different.

As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on
the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's
increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size).

Field of view *is* what we're talking about.

FoV may be what you're talking about, but you shouldn't mix terms
like "equivalent" and "lifesize". The first may be relevant when
talking about FoV of different sensors with the same lens, but
the latter isn't because it's independant of sensor size. That's
all I'm saying.

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped
to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped
sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one.
This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect
due to the crop."

I understood that and don't dispute it. I just think the term
"full frame equivalence" FoV and 1:1 lifesize are apples and
oranges.

Think we're both agreeing on the same thing, so all good. If you
agree with me, it means you're right and one of the good guys.


--
Troy Piggins

Neil Harrington wrote:

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped
to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped
sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one.
This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect
due to the crop."

Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view,
because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to
depict your subject?

--
Bertrand

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only
cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the
cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the
full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of
"magnification effect due to the crop."

Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view,
because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to depict
your subject?

--
Bertrand

Hey guys, we should be out with our macro lenses taking photos rather than
debating definitions :-)

Anyone else remember the days when a lens on a 35mm film body was defined as
having a "macro" setting if:
The image on a 6" x 4" print was life-size or larger.
This meant that a lens was "macro" if it could project a 1/4 size image on
the film.

Come to think of it, PhotoPlus's current issue reviews some zoom lenses and
berates one of them for claiming to have a "macro" function.

Regards, Rog.

ps: where did I put my macro?

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
* Neil Harrington wrote :

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 20 lines snipped |=---]

There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1
lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor
or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not
talking field of view, that's different.

As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size
on
the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's
increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size).

Field of view *is* what we're talking about.

FoV may be what you're talking about, but you shouldn't mix terms
like "equivalent" and "lifesize". The first may be relevant when
talking about FoV of different sensors with the same lens, but
the latter isn't because it's independant of sensor size. That's
all I'm saying.

Here's all I'm saying: a 1:1 image on a DX sensor will produce the same
final-size image as would a 1.5:1 image on a "full frame" sensor.


Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only
cropped
to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped
sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one.
This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification
effect
due to the crop."

I understood that and don't dispute it. I just think the term
"full frame equivalence" FoV and 1:1 lifesize are apples and
oranges.

Think we're both agreeing on the same thing, so all good. If you
agree with me, it means you're right and one of the good guys.


OK. :-)

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only
cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the
cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the
full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of
"magnification effect due to the crop."

Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view,
because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to depict
your subject?

But that doesn't have anything to do with image magnification per se, as far
as I can see. And the terms "macro" and "1:1" are all about image
magnification.