Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 May 2014 (Monday) 08:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100mm f2.8 Macro Lens Question

 
RicahrdGregory
Mostly Lurking
13 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
May 26, 2014 08:36 |  #1

Hi folks:

Just starting out in Macro photography and picked up the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens.

I have a question about the "Distance/Magnificatio​n" window on the lens. I understand that true macro is defined as 1:1, which on this window there is a marker for. So if I'm composing a shot on an object and reach focus at the 1:3 mark on the lens, does this mean then that this is not a 'true' macro shot, and I should move the lens closer such that it achieves focus at 1:1 setting?

Sorry for the newbie questions, but I'm really new to this and lens.

Thank you all for your help.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,579 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 435
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
May 26, 2014 08:45 |  #2

RicahrdGregory wrote in post #16930839 (external link)
Hi folks:

Just starting out in Macro photography and picked up the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens.

I have a question about the "Distance/Magnificatio​n" window on the lens. I understand that true macro is defined as 1:1, which on this window there is a marker for. So if I'm composing a shot on an object and reach focus at the 1:3 mark on the lens, does this mean then that this is not a 'true' macro shot, and I should move the lens closer such that it achieves focus at 1:1 setting?

Sorry for the newbie questions, but I'm really new to this and lens.

Thank you all for your help.

Typically, true macro is 1:2 or closer - 1:3 is considered close-up. However, you have to frame the subject as needed for the image you want. Often that means that you are not at 1:1. You don't have to shoot a bug's eye to have some very good images with that lens. One of my best "macro" shots is a crop of a shot I took from about 4 feet away with my 70-200 f4 IS. Although I have 2 macro lenses, I rarely shoot 1:1. I have them for their exceptional performance at all distances.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
May 26, 2014 10:00 |  #3

Here's a link...

RicahrdGregory wrote in post #16930839 (external link)
Hi folks:

Just starting out in Macro photography and picked up the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens.

I have a question about the "Distance/Magnificatio​n" window on the lens. I understand that true macro is defined as 1:1, which on this window there is a marker for. So if I'm composing a shot on an object and reach focus at the 1:3 mark on the lens, does this mean then that this is not a 'true' macro shot, and I should move the lens closer such that it achieves focus at 1:1 setting?

Sorry for the newbie questions, but I'm really new to this and lens.

Thank you all for your help.

The internet is your friend here.
http://www.dpreview.co​m …/canon_100_2p8_​is_usm_c16 (external link)


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
May 26, 2014 11:19 |  #4

Elton Balch wrote in post #16930987 (external link)
The internet is your friend here.
http://www.dpreview.co​m …/canon_100_2p8_​is_usm_c16 (external link)

The internet is his friend, but that is not going to help him - he doesn't have the L.

To the OP -

Shoot your subject with the size and framing that you want. Worry about (calculate) the magnification later. As RicahrdGregory said it doesn't have to be 1:1 for a good shot (or even macro).

Worry first (along with the sze and framing in the viewfinder) about getting better DOF in shots, lighting, etc.... Magnification is just a a number (unless you are doing scientific work or explaining the size of the image to someone). Go for what looks good to you first and how to get the shot you want with your lens, the rest can come later.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,159 posts
Gallery: 1633 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10251
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
May 26, 2014 11:27 |  #5

RicahrdGregory wrote in post #16930839 (external link)
Hi folks:

Just starting out in Macro photography and picked up the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens.

I have a question about the "Distance/Magnificatio​n" window on the lens. I understand that true macro is defined as 1:1, which on this window there is a marker for. So if I'm composing a shot on an object and reach focus at the 1:3 mark on the lens, does this mean then that this is not a 'true' macro shot, and I should move the lens closer such that it achieves focus at 1:1 setting?

Sorry for the newbie questions, but I'm really new to this and lens.

Thank you all for your help.

Heya,

Macro as you stated is defined as 1:1, and this usually at the minimum focal distance of the lens. Every millimeter you back up, you lose 1:1 magnification and go to 1:2, 1:3, etc. There's nothing wrong with this, if you are achieving the image you want to achieve. Focus on framing, composition, depth of field, etc, before worrying about the true magnification level. You can always easily measure your magnification by taking an image of a ruler with centimeter/millimeter edge to edge. I wouldn't worry about the magnification of an object, ever. I would worry about the final image only.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
May 26, 2014 11:46 |  #6

jimewall wrote in post #16931157 (external link)
The internet is his friend, but that is not going to help him - he doesn't have the L.

To the OP -

Shoot your subject with the size and framing that you want. Worry about (calculate) the magnification later. As RicahrdGregory said it doesn't have to be 1:1 for a good shot (or even macro).

Worry first (along with the sze and framing in the viewfinder) about getting better DOF in shots, lighting, etc.... Magnification is just a a number (unless you are doing scientific work or explaining the size of the image to someone). Go for what looks good to you first and how to get the shot you want with your lens, the rest can come later.

I know that. The review also compared all three 100 mm macro offerings as well as some general information I thought the OP would find helpful. The post by MalVeauX actually answers the specific question pretty well.


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RicahrdGregory
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
13 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
May 26, 2014 12:36 |  #7

Thanks all!! Good point about not worrying too much about the magnification - I think it comes down to the final image as stated and how it appears - the rest is superficial.

So just to reiterate - 1:1 is the object at it's lifesize form on the sensor, and from a Macro enthusiast point of view, it's a true to the macro term of a macro image. Anything else: ie 1:3, and 1:4, etc is regarded as not being a true macro shot? I think that's a bit challenging pending the object...for example shooting a subject at always the minimal focus distance of 30cm (for the Canon 100mm) such that 1:1 is always achieved sounds a bit too restrictive and impractical.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16931171 (external link)
Heya,

Macro as you stated is defined as 1:1, and this usually at the minimum focal distance of the lens. Every millimeter you back up, you lose 1:1 magnification and go to 1:2, 1:3, etc. There's nothing wrong with this, if you are achieving the image you want to achieve. Focus on framing, composition, depth of field, etc, before worrying about the true magnification level. You can always easily measure your magnification by taking an image of a ruler with centimeter/millimeter edge to edge. I wouldn't worry about the magnification of an object, ever. I would worry about the final image only.

Very best,




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tat3406
Senior Member
Avatar
275 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2013
     
May 28, 2014 01:04 |  #8

The macro shooter not always shoot at minimum focus distance. Normally macro shooter have more problem not enough magnification, 1:1 is not enough get detail shot of tiny insects. When 1:1 not enough, you can add extension tube or use Mp-e lens.

100mm macro is very useful lens,I use my 100L from landscape(infinity), portrait(midrange) and close up. Dont limit yourself at MFD!


6D, 100L,24-70 F4L, 40mm pancake, 70-300L
Carl Zeiss MP 50
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tat3406/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 541
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 28, 2014 02:32 |  #9

RicahrdGregory wrote in post #16931329 (external link)
Thanks all!! Good point about not worrying too much about the magnification - I think it comes down to the final image as stated and how it appears - the rest is superficial.

So just to reiterate - 1:1 is the object at it's lifesize form on the sensor, and from a Macro enthusiast point of view, it's a true to the macro term of a macro image. Anything else: ie 1:3, and 1:4, etc is regarded as not being a true macro shot? I think that's a bit challenging pending the object...for example shooting a subject at always the minimal focus distance of 30cm (for the Canon 100mm) such that 1:1 is always achieved sounds a bit too restrictive and impractical.

Sure, it's restrictive, and can be impractical, it's all in that you the photographer are hoping to achieve.

The 1:1 designation means that if you frame a "subject" and focus on that subject, what the lens "captures" and delivers to your sensor has the same "dimension" as what shows up on your sensor. And, the closer you get to MFD, the "smaller" the subject that can be captured.

So, let's say you are shooting a nice "medium size" flower/bug/whatever, and want to get the thing fully framed, you'd back up to where you could do that, then you'd focus. The "scale" shows the approximate distance of your focus.

But if you are wanting to shoot a small flower/bug/whatever...​if that subject is small enough to fully frame it at the MFD, then you have a chance! Focus, and the scale should show the 1:1 (MFD) setting/ Be aware, though, that at that closeness, for a Macro lens, the depth of field (the area in visually "acceptable" focus) will be very narrow!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,981 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1606
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 28, 2014 03:53 |  #10

I would not get too hung up on the strict definition of terms. IIRC the strict definition of macro is magnifications from 1:1 (1× magnification at the sensor plane) to I think 1:5 (5× magnification). Below 1:1 is defined as close up and past 1:5 become micro photography.

These definitions though are completely arbitary. Much better to just use the equipment you have to frame the image for best result, than worrying about definitions of terms (outside of knowing the definitions of course). As others have said it is really only in a scientific setting where knowing the true magnification is important that this becomes an issue.

As an example as long as the quality of the image is adaquate for the needs what is the real difference between a close up image of a subject that has been enlarged (shot say on your DSLR) or a true macro 1:1 image that has been contact printed from a sheet of 10×8 film in a large format camera if the two final images finish up identical?

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,319 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 28, 2014 10:44 |  #11

So just to reiterate - 1:1 is the object at it's lifesize form on the sensor, and from a Macro enthusiast point of view, it's a true to the macro term of a macro image. Anything else: ie 1:3, and 1:4, etc is regarded as not being a true macro shot? I think that's a bit challenging pending the object...for example shooting a subject at always the minimal focus distance of 30cm (for the Canon 100mm) such that 1:1 is always achieved sounds a bit too restrictive and impractical.

No. A true macro lens is one that can reach 1:1, or higher. However, no macro photographer I know considers only 1:1 photos to be "macro." You were given the right advice: frame the image the way you want. if it is less or more than 1:1, that is absolutely fine.


Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,374 views & 0 likes for this thread
100mm f2.8 Macro Lens Question
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is HamPhoto
1043 guests, 319 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.