More leaked details on 800/11, 600/11 and 85/2

Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.

1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size. 1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size. 1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
If you really wanted it to mean something, it could mean that any lens that allows a digital camera (and it'll depend on pixel-count) to go beyond the resolution of the human eye. Macro could mean the beginning of that kind of resolution. Micro could mean arbitrarily, 10x the resolution of the human eye or more.
 
gimp_dad, post: 64121056, member: 32081"]
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Many many moons ago macro lenses typically had a 0.5x max magnification. Often there would be an extension tube you can add onto the lens to take it up to 1x. The downside besides needing to have the tube was that with the extension tube you could only go between 0.5x and 1x when it was attached. Now it is more common to find lenses that go to 1x on their own.

So 0.5x as a general definition of when a lens is a macro lens has been around for quite a while.

--
Jonathan
[/QUOTE]
A decent macro from the last twenty years with this new fangled thing called “Otto’s Phokus” (sp?????) would have 1X magnification.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
If irregardless is a legitimate word, everything is now fair game. Don't even bother trying to fight for correct terminology anymore... ;-)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-irregardless-a-real-word-heh-heh
The definition for that word is labeled “nonstandard.” I had to explain to a friend of mine years ago that “nonstandard” is how intellectuals say “you sound like a blithering idiot and that’s not a real word.”
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
 
Try checking out a dictionary from 100 years ago.
Really? We have to rely on a definition applied to a lens a century ago?

I’m sorry, but using standards for decades old technology today doesn’t seem terribly useful.
No. You would be relying on the original definition that defined what macro photography was/is.

Instead, you want to rely on some marketing spiel from a few decades ago.



I do like your thought though. The requirement for modernity does lead to some amusement. If I define macro now as shooting things with a magnification of 1.2x on a 35mm camera, as my definition is the most current, does that make it correct?
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
I suggest you read his sentence, then your last paragraph again. Carefully.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Used to be a mind-boggling five...stories...tall!!! “Fast” cars could go way faster than a horse, by another 5 or 10 miles an hour. Things change, fellas.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
I suggest you read his sentence, then your last paragraph again. Carefully.
I defined the meaning of the term that is so meaningless.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
I suggest you read his sentence, then your last paragraph again. Carefully.
I defined the meaning of the term that is so meaningless.
Read slowly and carefully. Try sketching the examples he gave the words aren’t clear to you.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
I suggest you read his sentence, then your last paragraph again. Carefully.
I defined the meaning of the term that is so meaningless.
Read slowly and carefully. Try sketching the examples he gave the words aren’t clear to you.
If someone is shooting 1X and doesn’t know their sensor size, if that is the threshold for “meaningless,” then that person should probably just go drool in the corner and leave photography to functional adults.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
I suggest you read his sentence, then your last paragraph again. Carefully.
I defined the meaning of the term that is so meaningless.
Read slowly and carefully. Try sketching the examples he gave the words aren’t clear to you.
If someone is shooting 1X and doesn’t know their sensor size, if that is the threshold for “meaningless,” then that person should probably just go drool in the corner and leave photography to functional adults.
Ok, the corner is over there. Have fun.
 
Try checking out a dictionary from 100 years ago.
Really? We have to rely on a definition applied to a lens a century ago?

I’m sorry, but using standards for decades old technology today doesn’t seem terribly useful.
No. You would be relying on the original definition that defined what macro photography was/is.

Instead, you want to rely on some marketing spiel from a few decades ago.

I do like your thought though. The requirement for modernity does lead to some amusement. If I define macro now as shooting things with a magnification of 1.2x on a 35mm camera, as my definition is the most current, does that make it correct?
1X has a meaning: a life sized projection. At least that isn’t arbitrary. A supercomputer used to fill a building and do less than a current laptop can. Technology has changing definitions. And when the amazing tech of the day was lucky to get 0.5X some clever marketing exec said “let’s just call it macro!”

Macro literally means large, and macroscopic means large enough to be seen with the human eye. Objects projected at 1:1 are projected as seen by the human eye. Whether that image is enlarged later....we’ll, that’s why prints are often referred to as enlargements.
 
Last edited:
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
I suggest you read his sentence, then your last paragraph again. Carefully.
I defined the meaning of the term that is so meaningless.
Read slowly and carefully. Try sketching the examples he gave the words aren’t clear to you.
If someone is shooting 1X and doesn’t know their sensor size, if that is the threshold for “meaningless,” then that person should probably just go drool in the corner and leave photography to functional adults.
Ok, the corner is over there. Have fun.
Be as condescending as you like. Someone claimed that something that has a meaning is rendered without meaning based on a sensor’s size. If you know the size of your sensor it takes about three seconds and maybe a ruler if your spatial perception is poor to figure out if it will fill your frame. If it is too big, back off an inch or two.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
How did I get it wrong? Yes , you Are correct, that is what it means. And it means a different sized object fills the frame with different sensor sizes, just like I said.
 
Actually, what I’m saying is the opposite, definitions of words change over time. Basically now, macro has come to mean close up.
 
Try checking out a dictionary from 100 years ago.
Really? We have to rely on a definition applied to a lens a century ago?

I’m sorry, but using standards for decades old technology today doesn’t seem terribly useful.
No. You would be relying on the original definition that defined what macro photography was/is.

Instead, you want to rely on some marketing spiel from a few decades ago.

I do like your thought though. The requirement for modernity does lead to some amusement. If I define macro now as shooting things with a magnification of 1.2x on a 35mm camera, as my definition is the most current, does that make it correct?
1X has a meaning: a life sized projection. At least that isn’t arbitrary.
Isn’t it arbitrary though?

A supercomputer used to fill a building and do less than a current laptop can. Technology has changing definitions. And when the amazing tech of the day was lucky to get 0.5X some clever marketing exec said “let’s just call it macro!”

Macro literally means large, and macroscopic means large enough to be seen with the human eye. Objects projected at 1:1 are projected as seen by the human eye.

Do we really see things at 1:1 magnification?

Whether that image is enlarged later....we’ll, that’s why prints are often referred to as enlargements.
 
Interesting pics showing how the two DO lenses look extended. The 800/11 at 2.77lbs is substantially lighter than the 100-400/LII.

Also the 85/2IS is a 0.5x macro as expected.

https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...ss-lenses-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/amp/
Words don’t mean things apparently. How does a “macro” lens only produce 0.5X magnification? The term has become shorthand for “unusually close minimum focus distance” or “more than 0.1X magnification” but the term macro has always implied at least 1X magnification in my experience.
Yes macro means close focus. Macro lenses list specific magnification because macro doesn’t mean 1x and never has.
1x itself is kind of meaningless because it is dependent on sensor size.
False.
1x means filling the frame with a large flower on medium format but a little beetle on m4/3.
Again, incorrect. 1X or 1:1 magnification LITERALLY means the image projected is life-size, 1-to-1 ratio. Irrespective of recording medium, if you’re shooting a penny at 1:1 then the image projected by the lens is exactly the same size as the penny.

Whether macro means 1X or 0.5X or whatever may be debatable (it isn’t) but magnification means what it means and you got it wrong.
How did I get it wrong? Yes , you Are correct, that is what it means. And it means a different sized object fills the frame with different sensor sizes, just like I said.
If anyone on this whole planet would know the size of their sensor it’s someone who purchased a macro lens for the purpose of shooting macro images. So sensor size, quite the opposite of making 1X magnification mean nothing, would be first a foremost on a macro shooter’s mind.

Here’s what I’m saying: a photographer keeps track of light, angle, frame, subject, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focal length, fifty internal camera settings/preferences, and probably how they hold their tongue at just the right angle for balance during low light shots....and yet two variables, the size of their sensor and the magnification of their purpose-built and purpose-bought macro lens, is enough to blow their little minds and surprise them as they first go to shoot a lady bug on a flower according to the claim that magnification is rendered meaningless simply by whether or not this object or that will fill the frame. “Hey, what is going on here?! I can’t even fit the flower in the frame! What’s wrong with this....ooohhhhhh, I should have spent $12,000 on a medium format body!”

I’m just saying people know the meaning of 1X and it is important to those who understand it. Far from being meaningless, it’s a meaningful piece of information an informed buyer will be aware of from the beginning.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top