macro 1:2 vs 1:1

[cedm]

Hi guys,

I'm considering a macro lens, but I'm unsure if I really need a true 1:1 macro or if a half life size magnification would be enough for me.

Would be great to see side-by-side examples of objects shot at 1:1 and 1:2 magnifications. Coins, flowers, leaves, piece of lego, etc.

Hope you can help!

[macro junkie]

get a real macro lens:)

[cedm]

get a real macro lens:)

come on, i'm sure you got some pictures to show me ;)

[dpastern]

I'll echo Scott's comment. Get a real macro lens.

Dave

[cedm]

I should have rephrased my question.

I'm actually interested in seeing the effect of different magnifications of a same object at around half life size and life size.

Speaking of lens, I'd go with the Canon 100mm macro if I could afford it. I've a few options there. 85mm + 250D is interesting too, though it's only 1:2. Anyway, it's out of my budget atm, so I will settle on a 1-element +3 diopter for my 55-250mm for now.

[dpastern]

Why not consider a 50mm f1.8 and a set of Kenko extension tubes? It's not convenient, but playing with using different combinations of the tubes with the nifty 50 should give you some joy.

Dave

[cedm]

Why not consider a 50mm f1.8 and a set of Kenko extension tubes? It's not convenient, but playing with using different combinations of the tubes with the nifty 50 should give you some joy.

Dave

I considered the extension tubes some time ago and came to the conclusion that the working distance would be too small to be usable. I reckon a close up lens will do a better job in that regard. But that's obviously a temporary solution to help me decide what I really want/need.

If my interest for 1:1 macro holds, then the Canon 100mm will be my pick. Otherwise, 85mm + 250D down the road should make me happy. The lens will be used as a portrait lens half the time, so I'm interested in a fast and longer lens. But that's not for now. No money, no honey ;)

[John_B]

cedm,
The 100mm f/2.8 is great for portraits but superior to any lens with a macro filter for macro photos (to my eyes).

To answer your first question:
Here is an example of a 1:2 photo and the same subject at 1:1 Life Size. Both photos were taken with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.
1:2
http://johnbdigital.com/macro/lens_compare/100mm_1_2.jpg
click for specs (http://johnbdigital.com/macro/lens_compare/1_2_vs_1_1.htm)

1:1
http://johnbdigital.com/macro/lens_compare/100mm_1_1.jpg
click for specs (http://johnbdigital.com/macro/lens_compare/1_2_vs_1_1.htm)

[cedm]

Thanks John!

The difference between 1:1 & 1:2 is actually bigger than I thought. That's interesting. I'm leaning towards 1:1 now :)

[John_B]

cedm,
The more technical answer is: 1:1 Life Size is when the subject is its exact size on the sensor ex. a 16mm long insect takes up 16mm on the sensor. At 1:2 that same 16mm insect would only take up 8mm on the sensor. :)

[cedm]

yeah, I knew about the math but I had troubles to imagine it. A photo really helped here.

I usually go through people's albums to spot the pictures I like, then look up what lens they use. Makes better sense to me that looking at the lenses' spec to decide what I need. You got some very nice shots on your site by the way. I like your mushrooms pictures.

[John_B]

cedm,
Thanks, and glad I could help..
Like the saying goes a photo is like a 1000 words :cool:

[Bill Pham]

once again Jon to the rescue :lol::lol:. nice job on the demo too. and i would not hesitate to recommend the 100 macro. or any true macro lense. they all are really good. can't go wrong with any of them.

Bill

[PacAce]

Hi guys,

I'm considering a macro lens, but I'm unsure if I really need a true 1:1 macro or if a half life size magnification would be enough for me.

Would be great to see side-by-side examples of objects shot at 1:1 and 1:2 magnifications. Coins, flowers, leaves, piece of lego, etc.

Hope you can help!
Why would you need to see a side-by-side image comparison to make up your mind. If you have a 1:1 macro lens, the size of the image projected on to the image sensor would be the same size as the subject. With a 1:2 macro lens, the image would be half of real life size. So, if you had the two pictures side by side, the 1:2 picture would show the subject half the size (linear measurement) of that in the 1:1 picture. ;)

You can simulate this by using a zoom lens and taking a picture at, say, 24mm and another at 50mm. :)

[dpastern]

Why would you need to see a side-by-side image comparison to make up your mind. If you have a 1:1 macro lens, the size of the image projected on to the image sensor would be the same size as the subject. With a 1:2 macro lens, the image would be half of real life size. So, if you had the two pictures side by side, the 1:2 picture would show the subject half the size (linear measurement) of that in the 1:1 picture. ;)

You can simulate this by using a zoom lens and taking a picture at, say, 24mm and another at 50mm. :)

Agreed. Common sense just dictates that 1:2 is simply half the size of 1:1 by the mathematics of it all.

If subject is 12mm wide, on a 1:1 lens, it'll appear to be 12mm. With a 1:2 lens, it'll appear to be 6mm wide. Simple mathematics.

Don't understimate the 50mm/tubes combo. A powerful combination it is, I actually do most of my shooting these days with it to be honest. I rarely pull the Sigma 150mm out, unless I need to have easy variable magnification on the fly, or that greater working distance.

Dave

[cedm]

Why would you need to see a side-by-side image comparison to make up your mind. If you have a 1:1 macro lens, the size of the image projected on to the image sensor would be the same size as the subject. With a 1:2 macro lens, the image would be half of real life size. So, if you had the two pictures side by side, the 1:2 picture would show the subject half the size (linear measurement) of that in the 1:1 picture. ;)

Well, I don't have a macro lens, so I cannot do such a test. Furthermore I'm interested to know how much details the 1:1 macro lens can yield over a 1:2 macro. That's not something a math formula will show. Am I interested to see the sh!t stuck up a fly's butt? No, But I want to be able to appreciate the texture of a leave or a flower petal. I can't estimate that with my current set up, nor the math formula can.

You can simulate this by using a zoom lens and taking a picture at, say, 24mm and another at 50mm. :)

The perspective at 24mm would be different than at 50mm, so no, it wouldn't be the same at all.

[Player9]

Thanks John!

The difference between 1:1 & 1:2 is actually bigger than I thought. That's interesting. I'm leaning towards 1:1 now :)


The sample photos were taken with a 5D, and you are using a 1.6x format camera. You should understand that the 1:2 shot with your camera will show the blossom as much bigger than the 1:2 shot on the 5D. That said, I agree with the rest that you really need to buy a macro lens. The extension tubes and close up lenses are just not convenient, except for when you really need to travel light.

[PacAce]

Well, I don't have a macro lens, so I cannot do such a test. Furthermore I'm interested to know how much details the 1:1 macro lens can yield over a 1:2 macro. That's not something a math formula will show. Am I interested to see the sh!t stuck up a fly's butt? No, But I want to be able to appreciate the texture of a leave or a flower petal. I can't estimate that with my current set up, nor the math formula can.



The perspective at 24mm would be different than at 50mm, so no, it wouldn't be the same at all.
Sure it would be. Perspective isn't affected by the difference in focal length of two lenses assuming everything else remains constant. It's affected by the difference in distance. So, from the same distance, taking a picture with a 24mm lens and another with a 50mm lens, there will be no difference in the perspective of the two images; the difference will only be in the sizes of the subject in the images.

[Mathiau]

if it isnt 1:1 or lower it isnt macro :)