Why is Canon's 17cm focus distance macro, while 16cm focus distance is not macro?What is a macro lens?How does Nikon measure “minimum focus distance” for Macro/Micro lenses?Why is the Canon MP-E 65mm F/2.8 Macro Lens not called a zoom?What are the constructional differences between a macro and a regular lens?Why do certain lenses increase angle of view upon close focus?What lens should I use to be able to fill the frame with a mounted 35mm slide at 12 inches?General purpose lens with good macro capabilities searched (Canon mount)Live view underexposed at close focus with Canon 100mm f2.8L MacroIs my distance/size math for macro photography correct?Why doesn't the focus distance at which my lens has magnification 1 match the formula?What can I expect with stacked lenses for extreme macro photography?
How might the United Kingdom become a republic?
Wrapper in return method for test class
I have a ruthless DM and I'm considering leaving the party. What are my options to minimize the negative impact to the rest of the group?
What is temperature on a quantum level
Can I play a first turn Simic Growth Chamber to have 3 mana available in the second turn?
Why does the autopilot disengage even when it does not receive pilot input?
Optimising Table wrapping over a Select
How did the hit man miss?
What's the minimum number of sensors for a hobby GPS waypoint-following UAV?
As the Dungeon Master, how do I handle a player that insists on a specific class when I already know that choice will cause issues?
Cubic programming and beyond?
<schwitz>, <zwinker> etc. Does German always use 2nd Person Singular Imperative verbs for emoticons? If so, why?
Is purchasing foreign currency before going abroad a losing proposition?
Why can't supermassive black holes merge? (or can they?)
Supporting developers who insist on using their pet language
I quit, and boss offered me 3 month "grace period" where I could still come back
Why does resistance reduce when a conductive fabric is stretched?
Email about missed connecting flight compensation 5 months after flight, is there a point?
Is it rude to tell recruiters I would only change jobs for a better salary?
Why did the Japanese attack the Aleutians at the same time as Midway?
Creating custom objects with custom properties using generics
During copyediting, journal disagrees about spelling of paper's main topic
Was the Ford Model T black because of the speed black paint dries?
Correct use of ergeben?
Why is Canon's 17cm focus distance macro, while 16cm focus distance is not macro?
What is a macro lens?How does Nikon measure “minimum focus distance” for Macro/Micro lenses?Why is the Canon MP-E 65mm F/2.8 Macro Lens not called a zoom?What are the constructional differences between a macro and a regular lens?Why do certain lenses increase angle of view upon close focus?What lens should I use to be able to fill the frame with a mounted 35mm slide at 12 inches?General purpose lens with good macro capabilities searched (Canon mount)Live view underexposed at close focus with Canon 100mm f2.8L MacroIs my distance/size math for macro photography correct?Why doesn't the focus distance at which my lens has magnification 1 match the formula?What can I expect with stacked lenses for extreme macro photography?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Canon's 35mm RF f/1.8 STM lens is called a "macro" lens. Its minimum focusing
distance is 17 centimeters.
Canon's 24mm EF-S f/2.8 STM lens has a minimum focusing distance of 16
centimeters, less than that of the 35mm RF lens. However, I don't see it usually called
a "macro" lens. The 24mm is 38.4mm equivalent, practically the same as 35mm.
There is a text "macro 0.16m/0.52ft" written on the 24mm lens, but then again
the 40mm EF f/2.8 STM also has "macro 0.3m / 0.98 ft", and it's not called a
"macro" lens despite this text.
Why is the 35mm lens a macro lens whereas the 24mm lens isn't?
Is this illogicality:
- 17 cm EF -> macro
- 16 cm EF-S -> not macro
related to sensor size, so that different minimum focusing distances are
considered macro depending on the sensor size?
Or is there some property other than the minimum focus distance in the lenses, which I'm not seeing? Such as sharpness at minimum focusing distance?
canon macro macro-lenses
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
add a comment |
Canon's 35mm RF f/1.8 STM lens is called a "macro" lens. Its minimum focusing
distance is 17 centimeters.
Canon's 24mm EF-S f/2.8 STM lens has a minimum focusing distance of 16
centimeters, less than that of the 35mm RF lens. However, I don't see it usually called
a "macro" lens. The 24mm is 38.4mm equivalent, practically the same as 35mm.
There is a text "macro 0.16m/0.52ft" written on the 24mm lens, but then again
the 40mm EF f/2.8 STM also has "macro 0.3m / 0.98 ft", and it's not called a
"macro" lens despite this text.
Why is the 35mm lens a macro lens whereas the 24mm lens isn't?
Is this illogicality:
- 17 cm EF -> macro
- 16 cm EF-S -> not macro
related to sensor size, so that different minimum focusing distances are
considered macro depending on the sensor size?
Or is there some property other than the minimum focus distance in the lenses, which I'm not seeing? Such as sharpness at minimum focusing distance?
canon macro macro-lenses
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
2
Possible duplicate of What is a macro lens?
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:05
1
I'm not sure whether to click the "That solved my problem." button. The proposed duplicate says "Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion" and it also says "Mostly due to marketing reasons, term macro is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification". Is the reason for the difference magnification or distortion?
– juhist
Jul 4 at 10:23
I think the most important point is "macro is just a marketing term".
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:40
add a comment |
Canon's 35mm RF f/1.8 STM lens is called a "macro" lens. Its minimum focusing
distance is 17 centimeters.
Canon's 24mm EF-S f/2.8 STM lens has a minimum focusing distance of 16
centimeters, less than that of the 35mm RF lens. However, I don't see it usually called
a "macro" lens. The 24mm is 38.4mm equivalent, practically the same as 35mm.
There is a text "macro 0.16m/0.52ft" written on the 24mm lens, but then again
the 40mm EF f/2.8 STM also has "macro 0.3m / 0.98 ft", and it's not called a
"macro" lens despite this text.
Why is the 35mm lens a macro lens whereas the 24mm lens isn't?
Is this illogicality:
- 17 cm EF -> macro
- 16 cm EF-S -> not macro
related to sensor size, so that different minimum focusing distances are
considered macro depending on the sensor size?
Or is there some property other than the minimum focus distance in the lenses, which I'm not seeing? Such as sharpness at minimum focusing distance?
canon macro macro-lenses
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
Canon's 35mm RF f/1.8 STM lens is called a "macro" lens. Its minimum focusing
distance is 17 centimeters.
Canon's 24mm EF-S f/2.8 STM lens has a minimum focusing distance of 16
centimeters, less than that of the 35mm RF lens. However, I don't see it usually called
a "macro" lens. The 24mm is 38.4mm equivalent, practically the same as 35mm.
There is a text "macro 0.16m/0.52ft" written on the 24mm lens, but then again
the 40mm EF f/2.8 STM also has "macro 0.3m / 0.98 ft", and it's not called a
"macro" lens despite this text.
Why is the 35mm lens a macro lens whereas the 24mm lens isn't?
Is this illogicality:
- 17 cm EF -> macro
- 16 cm EF-S -> not macro
related to sensor size, so that different minimum focusing distances are
considered macro depending on the sensor size?
Or is there some property other than the minimum focus distance in the lenses, which I'm not seeing? Such as sharpness at minimum focusing distance?
canon macro macro-lenses
canon macro macro-lenses
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 9:30
juhistjuhist
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
1,9201 silver badge20 bronze badges
2
Possible duplicate of What is a macro lens?
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:05
1
I'm not sure whether to click the "That solved my problem." button. The proposed duplicate says "Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion" and it also says "Mostly due to marketing reasons, term macro is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification". Is the reason for the difference magnification or distortion?
– juhist
Jul 4 at 10:23
I think the most important point is "macro is just a marketing term".
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:40
add a comment |
2
Possible duplicate of What is a macro lens?
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:05
1
I'm not sure whether to click the "That solved my problem." button. The proposed duplicate says "Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion" and it also says "Mostly due to marketing reasons, term macro is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification". Is the reason for the difference magnification or distortion?
– juhist
Jul 4 at 10:23
I think the most important point is "macro is just a marketing term".
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:40
2
2
Possible duplicate of What is a macro lens?
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:05
Possible duplicate of What is a macro lens?
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:05
1
1
I'm not sure whether to click the "That solved my problem." button. The proposed duplicate says "Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion" and it also says "Mostly due to marketing reasons, term macro is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification". Is the reason for the difference magnification or distortion?
– juhist
Jul 4 at 10:23
I'm not sure whether to click the "That solved my problem." button. The proposed duplicate says "Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion" and it also says "Mostly due to marketing reasons, term macro is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification". Is the reason for the difference magnification or distortion?
– juhist
Jul 4 at 10:23
I think the most important point is "macro is just a marketing term".
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:40
I think the most important point is "macro is just a marketing term".
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:40
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
From Canon's website, emphasis added by me.
The 24mm EF-S f/2.8:
Minimum focusing distance of 0.5 ft./0.16 m; maximum magnification of x0.27.
The RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM:
A 0.5x magnification ratio and a close focusing distance of 0.56 ft./0.17m
Even though the 24mm lens can focus more closely, its wider field of view means that the magnification on the sensor at that closest focusing distance is much less. If you take a macro picture of the same object using both of these lenses as close as possible, you'll find the object fills much less of the (cropped to EF-S) frame with the 24mm lens.
Canon is apparently using the common-these-days threshold of 1:2 as close-enough-to-call-it-macro. The slightly-more-than 1:4 magnification of the 24mm lens doesn't come close enough to merit the label.
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
1
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
1
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
1
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
add a comment |
The original definition of "macro" is that the image on film is at least as large as the object in reality. With the amount of small sensor cameras around, that definition is of dubious usefulness. More relevant would be "effective" macro where the imaged area is not larger than 24mm×36mm, the imaging area of a 35mm analog (or digital "full frame" camera), never mind the actual sensor size. I am not sure but I don't think that definition is actually being used.
Instead, "macro" is used for a closeup range of zoom lenses (in compacts or ILC) where potential object magnification is maximised on the wide end of a zoom lens due to minimum focusing distance shrinking more than the viewing angle grows when zooming out. This closeup mode comes at the cost of extreme perspective distortion (sometimes wanted for emphasizing an object in a miniature depiction of its environment) and a very close focusing distance that often causes trouble with lens shadow.
Screw-on closeup lenses or diopters (achromatic for best quality) can be used to shift the maximum magnification from the wide end back to the tele end of a zoom lens, making for more relaxed perspective, positioning, and lighting conditions.
Actually dedicated macro lenses don't get their magnification by rearranging the optical recipe of a normal zoom lens at the wide end for foreshortening the minimum focusing distance: their optical recipe does not prioritize best imaging quality at distances close to +∞ like that of a typical zoom lens and they don't have the typically large minimum focusing distances at their long focal lengths that "normal" zoom lenses have.
add a comment |
The closest focusing distance is 48cm for Canon's 180mm macro, and 30cm for the 100mm macro, both of which are 1:1 macros, and 24cm for the 65mm 1-5x macro, so it's not the distance that counts.
What makes a macro is its magnification. The subject size is 1:1 on the sensor for a full macro, or 1:2 for many budget macros, as the subject is considered "magnified enough" to warrant the (marketing) term; the 0.5x magnification is much bigger than normal non-macro lenses in general...
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
1
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109308%2fwhy-is-canons-17cm-focus-distance-macro-while-16cm-focus-distance-is-not-macro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
From Canon's website, emphasis added by me.
The 24mm EF-S f/2.8:
Minimum focusing distance of 0.5 ft./0.16 m; maximum magnification of x0.27.
The RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM:
A 0.5x magnification ratio and a close focusing distance of 0.56 ft./0.17m
Even though the 24mm lens can focus more closely, its wider field of view means that the magnification on the sensor at that closest focusing distance is much less. If you take a macro picture of the same object using both of these lenses as close as possible, you'll find the object fills much less of the (cropped to EF-S) frame with the 24mm lens.
Canon is apparently using the common-these-days threshold of 1:2 as close-enough-to-call-it-macro. The slightly-more-than 1:4 magnification of the 24mm lens doesn't come close enough to merit the label.
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
1
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
1
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
1
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
add a comment |
From Canon's website, emphasis added by me.
The 24mm EF-S f/2.8:
Minimum focusing distance of 0.5 ft./0.16 m; maximum magnification of x0.27.
The RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM:
A 0.5x magnification ratio and a close focusing distance of 0.56 ft./0.17m
Even though the 24mm lens can focus more closely, its wider field of view means that the magnification on the sensor at that closest focusing distance is much less. If you take a macro picture of the same object using both of these lenses as close as possible, you'll find the object fills much less of the (cropped to EF-S) frame with the 24mm lens.
Canon is apparently using the common-these-days threshold of 1:2 as close-enough-to-call-it-macro. The slightly-more-than 1:4 magnification of the 24mm lens doesn't come close enough to merit the label.
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
1
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
1
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
1
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
add a comment |
From Canon's website, emphasis added by me.
The 24mm EF-S f/2.8:
Minimum focusing distance of 0.5 ft./0.16 m; maximum magnification of x0.27.
The RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM:
A 0.5x magnification ratio and a close focusing distance of 0.56 ft./0.17m
Even though the 24mm lens can focus more closely, its wider field of view means that the magnification on the sensor at that closest focusing distance is much less. If you take a macro picture of the same object using both of these lenses as close as possible, you'll find the object fills much less of the (cropped to EF-S) frame with the 24mm lens.
Canon is apparently using the common-these-days threshold of 1:2 as close-enough-to-call-it-macro. The slightly-more-than 1:4 magnification of the 24mm lens doesn't come close enough to merit the label.
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
From Canon's website, emphasis added by me.
The 24mm EF-S f/2.8:
Minimum focusing distance of 0.5 ft./0.16 m; maximum magnification of x0.27.
The RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM:
A 0.5x magnification ratio and a close focusing distance of 0.56 ft./0.17m
Even though the 24mm lens can focus more closely, its wider field of view means that the magnification on the sensor at that closest focusing distance is much less. If you take a macro picture of the same object using both of these lenses as close as possible, you'll find the object fills much less of the (cropped to EF-S) frame with the 24mm lens.
Canon is apparently using the common-these-days threshold of 1:2 as close-enough-to-call-it-macro. The slightly-more-than 1:4 magnification of the 24mm lens doesn't come close enough to merit the label.
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
edited Jul 4 at 13:09
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 12:45
mattdmmattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges668 bronze badges
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
1
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
1
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
1
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
add a comment |
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
1
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
1
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
1
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
Well, one of the lens is EF-S (crop) and the other RF (full frame) so they should fill about the same percentage of the frame... But I guess this is the answer, thanks!
– juhist
Jul 4 at 12:56
1
1
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
@juhist crop factor, or filling percentage of frame, has nothing to do with magnification. The magnification is just the ratio of size on sensor to size in the plane of focus. A real-world 5 mm object in focus that covers 10 mm of pixels has a 2:1 magnification. A 50 mm object further away that covers 10 mm of pixels when in focus has a 1:5 magnification. It doesn't matter if the lens can cover a 1" sensor, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame, or even large format film.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:17
1
1
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
@scottbb I'm the one who mentioned filling the frame, and crop factor is relevant in this sense. Of course it takes less magnification to fill a smaller frame.
– mattdm
Jul 4 at 13:18
1
1
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
True. My concern is merely that crop factor and frame-fill aren't central to the concept of magnification. They are things to consider with regards to composition, and certainly factor in when talking about final magnification of a print. But the MFD and magnification of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor the lens is projecting onto.
– scottbb
Jul 4 at 13:39
add a comment |
The original definition of "macro" is that the image on film is at least as large as the object in reality. With the amount of small sensor cameras around, that definition is of dubious usefulness. More relevant would be "effective" macro where the imaged area is not larger than 24mm×36mm, the imaging area of a 35mm analog (or digital "full frame" camera), never mind the actual sensor size. I am not sure but I don't think that definition is actually being used.
Instead, "macro" is used for a closeup range of zoom lenses (in compacts or ILC) where potential object magnification is maximised on the wide end of a zoom lens due to minimum focusing distance shrinking more than the viewing angle grows when zooming out. This closeup mode comes at the cost of extreme perspective distortion (sometimes wanted for emphasizing an object in a miniature depiction of its environment) and a very close focusing distance that often causes trouble with lens shadow.
Screw-on closeup lenses or diopters (achromatic for best quality) can be used to shift the maximum magnification from the wide end back to the tele end of a zoom lens, making for more relaxed perspective, positioning, and lighting conditions.
Actually dedicated macro lenses don't get their magnification by rearranging the optical recipe of a normal zoom lens at the wide end for foreshortening the minimum focusing distance: their optical recipe does not prioritize best imaging quality at distances close to +∞ like that of a typical zoom lens and they don't have the typically large minimum focusing distances at their long focal lengths that "normal" zoom lenses have.
add a comment |
The original definition of "macro" is that the image on film is at least as large as the object in reality. With the amount of small sensor cameras around, that definition is of dubious usefulness. More relevant would be "effective" macro where the imaged area is not larger than 24mm×36mm, the imaging area of a 35mm analog (or digital "full frame" camera), never mind the actual sensor size. I am not sure but I don't think that definition is actually being used.
Instead, "macro" is used for a closeup range of zoom lenses (in compacts or ILC) where potential object magnification is maximised on the wide end of a zoom lens due to minimum focusing distance shrinking more than the viewing angle grows when zooming out. This closeup mode comes at the cost of extreme perspective distortion (sometimes wanted for emphasizing an object in a miniature depiction of its environment) and a very close focusing distance that often causes trouble with lens shadow.
Screw-on closeup lenses or diopters (achromatic for best quality) can be used to shift the maximum magnification from the wide end back to the tele end of a zoom lens, making for more relaxed perspective, positioning, and lighting conditions.
Actually dedicated macro lenses don't get their magnification by rearranging the optical recipe of a normal zoom lens at the wide end for foreshortening the minimum focusing distance: their optical recipe does not prioritize best imaging quality at distances close to +∞ like that of a typical zoom lens and they don't have the typically large minimum focusing distances at their long focal lengths that "normal" zoom lenses have.
add a comment |
The original definition of "macro" is that the image on film is at least as large as the object in reality. With the amount of small sensor cameras around, that definition is of dubious usefulness. More relevant would be "effective" macro where the imaged area is not larger than 24mm×36mm, the imaging area of a 35mm analog (or digital "full frame" camera), never mind the actual sensor size. I am not sure but I don't think that definition is actually being used.
Instead, "macro" is used for a closeup range of zoom lenses (in compacts or ILC) where potential object magnification is maximised on the wide end of a zoom lens due to minimum focusing distance shrinking more than the viewing angle grows when zooming out. This closeup mode comes at the cost of extreme perspective distortion (sometimes wanted for emphasizing an object in a miniature depiction of its environment) and a very close focusing distance that often causes trouble with lens shadow.
Screw-on closeup lenses or diopters (achromatic for best quality) can be used to shift the maximum magnification from the wide end back to the tele end of a zoom lens, making for more relaxed perspective, positioning, and lighting conditions.
Actually dedicated macro lenses don't get their magnification by rearranging the optical recipe of a normal zoom lens at the wide end for foreshortening the minimum focusing distance: their optical recipe does not prioritize best imaging quality at distances close to +∞ like that of a typical zoom lens and they don't have the typically large minimum focusing distances at their long focal lengths that "normal" zoom lenses have.
The original definition of "macro" is that the image on film is at least as large as the object in reality. With the amount of small sensor cameras around, that definition is of dubious usefulness. More relevant would be "effective" macro where the imaged area is not larger than 24mm×36mm, the imaging area of a 35mm analog (or digital "full frame" camera), never mind the actual sensor size. I am not sure but I don't think that definition is actually being used.
Instead, "macro" is used for a closeup range of zoom lenses (in compacts or ILC) where potential object magnification is maximised on the wide end of a zoom lens due to minimum focusing distance shrinking more than the viewing angle grows when zooming out. This closeup mode comes at the cost of extreme perspective distortion (sometimes wanted for emphasizing an object in a miniature depiction of its environment) and a very close focusing distance that often causes trouble with lens shadow.
Screw-on closeup lenses or diopters (achromatic for best quality) can be used to shift the maximum magnification from the wide end back to the tele end of a zoom lens, making for more relaxed perspective, positioning, and lighting conditions.
Actually dedicated macro lenses don't get their magnification by rearranging the optical recipe of a normal zoom lens at the wide end for foreshortening the minimum focusing distance: their optical recipe does not prioritize best imaging quality at distances close to +∞ like that of a typical zoom lens and they don't have the typically large minimum focusing distances at their long focal lengths that "normal" zoom lenses have.
answered Jul 4 at 10:59
user85629
add a comment |
add a comment |
The closest focusing distance is 48cm for Canon's 180mm macro, and 30cm for the 100mm macro, both of which are 1:1 macros, and 24cm for the 65mm 1-5x macro, so it's not the distance that counts.
What makes a macro is its magnification. The subject size is 1:1 on the sensor for a full macro, or 1:2 for many budget macros, as the subject is considered "magnified enough" to warrant the (marketing) term; the 0.5x magnification is much bigger than normal non-macro lenses in general...
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
1
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
add a comment |
The closest focusing distance is 48cm for Canon's 180mm macro, and 30cm for the 100mm macro, both of which are 1:1 macros, and 24cm for the 65mm 1-5x macro, so it's not the distance that counts.
What makes a macro is its magnification. The subject size is 1:1 on the sensor for a full macro, or 1:2 for many budget macros, as the subject is considered "magnified enough" to warrant the (marketing) term; the 0.5x magnification is much bigger than normal non-macro lenses in general...
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
1
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
add a comment |
The closest focusing distance is 48cm for Canon's 180mm macro, and 30cm for the 100mm macro, both of which are 1:1 macros, and 24cm for the 65mm 1-5x macro, so it's not the distance that counts.
What makes a macro is its magnification. The subject size is 1:1 on the sensor for a full macro, or 1:2 for many budget macros, as the subject is considered "magnified enough" to warrant the (marketing) term; the 0.5x magnification is much bigger than normal non-macro lenses in general...
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
The closest focusing distance is 48cm for Canon's 180mm macro, and 30cm for the 100mm macro, both of which are 1:1 macros, and 24cm for the 65mm 1-5x macro, so it's not the distance that counts.
What makes a macro is its magnification. The subject size is 1:1 on the sensor for a full macro, or 1:2 for many budget macros, as the subject is considered "magnified enough" to warrant the (marketing) term; the 0.5x magnification is much bigger than normal non-macro lenses in general...
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 13:15
vlumivlumi
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
2601 silver badge7 bronze badges
1
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
add a comment |
1
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
1
1
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
and 13cm for the EF-S 35mm Macro
– xenoid
Jul 4 at 17:11
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109308%2fwhy-is-canons-17cm-focus-distance-macro-while-16cm-focus-distance-is-not-macro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Possible duplicate of What is a macro lens?
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:05
1
I'm not sure whether to click the "That solved my problem." button. The proposed duplicate says "Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion" and it also says "Mostly due to marketing reasons, term macro is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification". Is the reason for the difference magnification or distortion?
– juhist
Jul 4 at 10:23
I think the most important point is "macro is just a marketing term".
– Philip Kendall
Jul 4 at 10:40