mikendruk
Member
Thanks.
--
The penguin is mightier than the swordfish.
--
The penguin is mightier than the swordfish.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Can someone please explain a MACRO lens to me?
- Thread starter mikendruk
- Start date
Don't know what part you don't understand, so I will focus on how it is different from other lenses
1. Has a lower minimum focusing distance, which means at any given focal length, you can come closer to the subject and make it bigger on your sensor (causing higher magnification)
2. Has a very flat field of curvature at small focus distances. Ideally the field of curvature of a lens is an arc, such that objects at same distance are equally in focus. When focusing close, this behavior is undesirable because of the very shallow DOF, as it renders flat planes partly out of focus. A macro lens corrects the curvature into a more flat plane at closer distances
3. Since macro lenses can focus from very close distances upto infinity, they have longer path on focusing motors. The makes most macro lenses slower to focus than equivalent non-macro lenses.
4. Macro lenses usually are designed to be very sharp because they need to resolve very fine detail at a high magnification
A purists' macro lens is one that give you a 1:1 (size of subject is same on sensor as in real life, also called life size) or higher magnification
--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashish-pragya.com
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html
1. Has a lower minimum focusing distance, which means at any given focal length, you can come closer to the subject and make it bigger on your sensor (causing higher magnification)
2. Has a very flat field of curvature at small focus distances. Ideally the field of curvature of a lens is an arc, such that objects at same distance are equally in focus. When focusing close, this behavior is undesirable because of the very shallow DOF, as it renders flat planes partly out of focus. A macro lens corrects the curvature into a more flat plane at closer distances
3. Since macro lenses can focus from very close distances upto infinity, they have longer path on focusing motors. The makes most macro lenses slower to focus than equivalent non-macro lenses.
4. Macro lenses usually are designed to be very sharp because they need to resolve very fine detail at a high magnification
A purists' macro lens is one that give you a 1:1 (size of subject is same on sensor as in real life, also called life size) or higher magnification
--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashish-pragya.com
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html
mikendruk
Member
Thanks.
I was trying to understand the difference between a 50mm prime and a 50mm macro.
--
The penguin is mightier than the swordfish.
I was trying to understand the difference between a 50mm prime and a 50mm macro.
--
The penguin is mightier than the swordfish.
mikendruk
Member
If I bought a 50mm macro, would I get the same + more (macro) use out of it, than if I bought a 50mm prime?
--
The penguin is mightier than the swordfish.
--
The penguin is mightier than the swordfish.
silverbluemx
Well-known member
It will probably be either slower (smaller aperture) or bigger/heavier/more expensive.
Maybe both.
Probably slower to focus as well. Maybe sharper.
But, this differences put aside, you can of course use it as a "traditional" 50mm lens.
Those are generalities, there might be exceptions.
SilverblueMX (France)
http://www.mstorn.net
Maybe both.
Probably slower to focus as well. Maybe sharper.
But, this differences put aside, you can of course use it as a "traditional" 50mm lens.
Those are generalities, there might be exceptions.
--
SilverblueMX (France)
http://www.mstorn.net
If your body is EF-S compatible, I'd highly recommend that you get the EF-S 60mm macro instead of the 50mm macro. The 50 needs an extra adaptor to get down to 1:1 and that makes it end up costing as much or more than the 60. And the 60 is a superior lens.
On the other hand, if you have a full-frame body, then the EF-S lenses won't work for you. And, if you don't need 1:1 focusing, then you could get the 50mm macro.
There are tradeoffs in every lens choice.
The main thing that you give up by getting the macro lens is the very large max aperture that you could get with one of the other 50mm lenses. There's a 50mm f/1.2, a 1.4, and a 1.8 to choose from. The 50 and 60mm macros are both f/2.8.
But if you don't need the super large max aperture, then the macro would be my choice because it'll do everything that the other 50s will do, and probably do it better.
I've got the 50mm f/1.8 II and the EF-S 60. I almost never use the 50. The 60 is razor sharp, has much better autofocus, has full-time manual focusing, has much better manual focus "feel", and is overall, a much higher quality lens.
On the other hand, if I had the 50mm f/1.2 L, I'd probably use that lens quite a bit at f/1.2 just to get that very shallow DOF. But as soon as I was going to stop that 50 down to f/2.8, I'd switch to the EF-S 60 macro because I doubt seriously that the 50mm f/1.2 "L" is anywhere near as sharp as the 60 is in any of the 60's range of apertures.
So again, other than for the range of apertures between f/2.8 and the widest aperture of the 50mm in question, there is nothing that the macro wouldn't do just as well or better IMO.
If you need the super large apertures, then you can't use the macro. But for everything else, the macro should be as good or better than the other lens. And, of course, it also gives you macro
I find the 60 to be a fantastically versatile lens.
--
Jim H.
On the other hand, if you have a full-frame body, then the EF-S lenses won't work for you. And, if you don't need 1:1 focusing, then you could get the 50mm macro.
There are tradeoffs in every lens choice.
The main thing that you give up by getting the macro lens is the very large max aperture that you could get with one of the other 50mm lenses. There's a 50mm f/1.2, a 1.4, and a 1.8 to choose from. The 50 and 60mm macros are both f/2.8.
But if you don't need the super large max aperture, then the macro would be my choice because it'll do everything that the other 50s will do, and probably do it better.
I've got the 50mm f/1.8 II and the EF-S 60. I almost never use the 50. The 60 is razor sharp, has much better autofocus, has full-time manual focusing, has much better manual focus "feel", and is overall, a much higher quality lens.
On the other hand, if I had the 50mm f/1.2 L, I'd probably use that lens quite a bit at f/1.2 just to get that very shallow DOF. But as soon as I was going to stop that 50 down to f/2.8, I'd switch to the EF-S 60 macro because I doubt seriously that the 50mm f/1.2 "L" is anywhere near as sharp as the 60 is in any of the 60's range of apertures.
So again, other than for the range of apertures between f/2.8 and the widest aperture of the 50mm in question, there is nothing that the macro wouldn't do just as well or better IMO.
If you need the super large apertures, then you can't use the macro. But for everything else, the macro should be as good or better than the other lens. And, of course, it also gives you macro
I find the 60 to be a fantastically versatile lens.
--
Jim H.
Advantage of the "normal" primes: big apertures, e.g. f1.2, or f1.4, or f1.8
to let in lots of light to take pictures in low light situations. the large
aperture also allows you to make a very shallow DOF.
Macro lenses: smaller aperture, e.g. F2.8, and optimized to focus
also to close distances, i.e.you can take macros, but you can also use
them at infinity. If you don't need the large aperture, you can use
a macro as a normal lens, and have the macro at the same time.
All the four points I posted above will apply to this set as well
--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashish-pragya.com
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html
tkbslc
Forum Pro
As was mentioned above, yes and no. not sure which 50mm macro you are thinking of, but Sigma and Canon both make one. The Canon is a f2.5 lens that does 50% magnification. Meaning you can fill your image with something that is twice the size of the sensor. The Sigma is f2.8 lens with a 1:1 or 100% magnification lens. So you could fill your viewfinder and image with something that is the same size as the sensor (about 1" wide). So as far as macro goes, the sigma would be a better macro.
the other difference (As has already been mentioned) is the max aperture. The Macro lenses mentioned above are f2.5 or f2.8. That is a full stop lower than than the f1.8 and 2 stop lower than the f1.4 that the 50mm primes have. So this means you would be able to use the lens is much lower light and higher shutter speeds than the macros.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum