Canon 55-250mm - Macro?

I am considering buying this lense: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Decent? Yes.

Though I find it awkward standing a meter away with full zoom for a macro shot...

It won't do technically do macro, which is 1:1 reproduction according to most people. However, it will do about 1:3, which is pretty good for a lens like this.

Standing 1 meter away doesn't really matter for me, if the pictures are really sharp and really close-up.

Thanks for the replies.

Anyone got samples? I can't seem to find them.

This is one of the most beautiful pictures I've seen from the 55-250...

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=8512763&post​count=9101

Kiwikat wrote in post #8521553
This is one of the most beautiful pictures I've seen from the 55-250...

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=8512763&post​count=9101

WOW, thats a stunner! Must try some of that with mine!

RobinSchouten wrote in post #8521502
Standing 1 meter away doesn't really matter for me, if the pictures are really sharp and really close-up..

What's really close up? As was mentioned, you'll get a .31 mag factor which is not quite 1:3. It does great for closeup but not macro.

shot this with a 28-135. So I am sure with a 250mm you could get much closer for a macro shot...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

gjl711 wrote in post #8521589
What's really close up? As was mentioned, you'll get a .31 mag factor which is not quite 1:3. It does great for closeup but not macro.

I mean, sharp images with zooming in don't bother me. Does zooming in show the same details as with a macro lens?

Thanks for the pictures, they really look stunning! The flower even looks like a really huge flower thanks to all the detail.

More pictures to convince me are appreciated! :P

Em2 wrote in post #8521924
shot this with a 28-135. So I am sure with a 250mm you could get much closer for a macro shot...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

you have a great bug in your system
how do you like your 28-135 for walk around (a quick reply will do as not to rob the thread)

Em2 wrote in post #8521924
shot this with a 28-135. So I am sure with a 250mm you could get much closer for a macro shot...

The focal leangth has nothing to do with the ability to take macro pictures. All it does is govern the working distance, that is the distance from the lens to the subject. The 55-250 and the standard 18-55 kit lens deliver about the same level of magnification, about 1:3. The 28-135 a little less, 1:5. At 1:3 the smallest target you can photograph and fill the frame would be about 2" by 3". To get smaller targets you need a macro lens capable of magnifications of 1:1 or a set of tubes to increase the magnification of the lens.

So question to Robin, how small of a subject are you looking to photograph? The lenses listed so far would do great on flowers and large bugs but to get really close, like bug faces, a macro lens is a must. So, are you looking for

This (about 1:3)

-Well the first one isn't possible with the lens I have at the moment, the 18-55mm. So I guess the 55-250mm could handle the first one easily, that's the start.
-The second picture is awesome, that about what I'm looking for.
-The third is nice, but too much for me. But just to know for certain, what lens does the third require?

Also; what's makes a macro lens a macro lens? The focal length?

Thanks for the images

Thank you gjl711 for illustrating the difference in magnifications

RobinSchouten,
A macro lens is a lens that will give you true 1:1 magnification ex. a subject that is 10mm will show up with the macro lens at 1:1 as 10mm on your sensor (life size).

55-250 plus extension tubes.