Macro vs Non-Macro whats the differnce beside how closeI can get?

[R Schade]

I am planning to buy a new lens. I see lenses which are marked Macro what does this les have in common with it's counter part non-macro type lenses? I know for instance that these macro lenses are good for close up work, but what about using as it's the same as it's counterpart?

Thanks,
Russ

[tim]

Often lenses with "macro" written on them are just markerting people showing their intelligence. Real macro lenses do 1:1 or better. My Tamron 28-75 has "macro" written on it, but it's 1:3 and the minimum focus distance is a lot further away than my Canon macro lens.

The main difference really is just that you can focus on something a lot closer than a non-macro lens.

[FlipsidE]

I always thought a larger focus distance was preferrable for Macro lenses. 1:1 is still a necessity for a true Macro lens though. The longer distance is quite nice when you are photographing something rather twitchie...like insects...esp those with stingers.

FlipsidE

[dr.bear]

A lot of Canon lenses have the macro (flower icon) text written on the side of the barrel, but they are not true macro lenses (1:1). A good example is the 28-105 USM that I use to own. It says macro but I was unable to get anything better than 1:3 approx. True Canon macro lenses include the 65, 100 and 180mm. The 50mm is a macro lens but it will only get you 1:2 ratio. You have to get an extension adapter to get it to 1:1. A good all-around macro lens is the 100 2.8. It does wonders for portraits too.

[donlavange]

I use the 100 f2.8 macro for macro and for portraits. I love the detail I get in the portraits. On the macro side it is stunning although, I am ashamed to find grime on household things I thought were clean!

[R Schade]

Hey, Thanks to you all. You were very helpfull