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 EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 12 Dec 2004 (Sunday) 11:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Effective Reproduction ratio 50/2.5 macro

 
puttick
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Mar 2002
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
     
Dec 12, 2004 11:06 |  #1

After much thought, I'm buying a Canon 50/2.5 macro to use with my 300d. One "issue" often referred to with this lens is the limitation to a reproduction ratio of 1:2 - but having thought about it, while this lens was designed for full frame 35mm film, I will be using it on a dSLR with the APS-C size sensor of 22x15mm.

Consider an object with a horizontal dimension of 36mm. With the lens set for a reproduction ratio of 1:2 the size of the image at the film plane, on full-frame 35mm film (36x24mm), would be 18mm wide. The same lens on the 300d, with the same lens flange to image distance of course, will give the same sized actual image, i.e. 18mm wide. But this image will be on a 22mm wide imaging chip, so while the actual (optical) reproduction ratio remains the same at 1:2, in relation to the frame size the effective reproduction ratio becomes 22/18 or approx 1:1.22. This is quite close to the 1:1 everyone seems to want, but think they need a different lens to achieve.

There is of course no true gain in resolution for this effective gain in "magnification", but surely it is true that the best things in life are free. With the 100mm you would be getting an effective reproduction ratio of 1:0.61, a lot more than the 1:1 you thought you paid for!

Or perhaps you have a different view on this?

Incidentally, my reasons for choosing the 50mm over the 100mm:
1. Cost
2. Size
3. Fills the gap nicely between my 17-40 and 70-200
4. Greater depth of field for a given field of view due to shorter focal length

Of course I know that the working distance is less with the 50mm, and I will have to learn to live with that.


Nigel Puttick
North Yorkshire, UK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rraman
Senior Member
Avatar
786 posts
Joined Oct 2003
Location: New York
     
Dec 12, 2004 11:29 |  #2

You may consider Sigma 50mm macro lens that gives you 1:1 macro without any additional attachments.


Raman
5D Mark II | 40D | Canon 17-40mm f/4 L| Canon 50 mm f/1.8 | Canon 100mm macro f/2.8
www.theZenArt.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon, ­ The ­ Elder
teaching fish to ride a bicycle
Avatar
2,490 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Warren, Michigan
     
Dec 12, 2004 13:59 as a reply to  @ rraman's post |  #3

Yep- agree with rraman-
I have the Sigma and it is a beauty !!


A 40D, a 30D, some nice glass and a great Shooting Partner.
"...As in music, so in life."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 219
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Dec 13, 2004 12:23 |  #4

puttick wrote:
After much thought, I'm buying a Canon 50/2.5 macro to use with my 300d. One "issue" often referred to with this lens is the limitation to a reproduction ratio of 1:2 - but having thought about it, while this lens was designed for full frame 35mm film, I will be using it on a dSLR with the APS-C size sensor of 22x15mm.

Consider an object with a horizontal dimension of 36mm. With the lens set for a reproduction ratio of 1:2 the size of the image at the film plane, on full-frame 35mm film (36x24mm), would be 18mm wide. The same lens on the 300d, with the same lens flange to image distance of course, will give the same sized actual image, i.e. 18mm wide. But this image will be on a 22mm wide imaging chip, so while the actual (optical) reproduction ratio remains the same at 1:2, in relation to the frame size the effective reproduction ratio becomes 22/18 or approx 1:1.22. This is quite close to the 1:1 everyone seems to want, but think they need a different lens to achieve.

There is of course no true gain in resolution for this effective gain in "magnification", but surely it is true that the best things in life are free. With the 100mm you would be getting an effective reproduction ratio of 1:0.61, a lot more than the 1:1 you thought you paid for!

Or perhaps you have a different view on this?

Incidentally, my reasons for choosing the 50mm over the 100mm:
1. Cost
2. Size
3. Fills the gap nicely between my 17-40 and 70-200
4. Greater depth of field for a given field of view due to shorter focal length

Of course I know that the working distance is less with the 50mm, and I will have to learn to live with that.

You're sort of right on the magnification issue. The reproduction ratio is the ratio between the size of the original object and the size of the image as recorded by the film/sensor. A 36 mm object at 1:2 reproduction ratio will yield an 18 mm image on the sensor no matter what size the sensor is. But what you're talking about is the extra enlarging magnification you need to make to get a full-sized print from the 15x22.5 mm sensor of the DR vs that from a full-frame camera. You could get the same magnification by cropping the full-frame image to 15x22.5, but it's still empty magnification. It won't add any detail that wasn't captured at 1:2 but would have been at a true 1:1 reproduction ratio. This is the other end of the dreaded crop factor argument. There's no substitute for a true 1:1 reproduction of a macro, just as enlarging the 7734 out of the center of a 50 mm shot won't be as good as shooting with a 400 mm telephoto in the first place.


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,929 posts
Likes: 337
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Dec 13, 2004 13:07 as a reply to  @ Jon's post |  #5

I think about this slightly differently. I just ordered the Canon 100mm macro today, which is 1:1 at 6 inches. At 6 inches if I were on a full frame camera i'd be able to capture something 35mm across, on my rebel i'll be able to capture something 22mm accross. The 1.6X should more accurately be referred to as a "crop factor", as nothing is magnified, it's just cut the edges off. Like you say, you get no more detail or resolution that you would on a full frame camera, you just get less of the photo.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
puttick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Mar 2002
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
     
Dec 14, 2004 06:43 as a reply to  @ tim's post |  #6

tim wrote:
I think about this slightly differently. I just ordered the Canon 100mm macro today, which is 1:1 at 6 inches. At 6 inches if I were on a full frame camera i'd be able to capture something 35mm across, on my rebel i'll be able to capture something 22mm accross. The 1.6X should more accurately be referred to as a "crop factor", as nothing is magnified, it's just cut the edges off. Like you say, you get no more detail or resolution that you would on a full frame camera, you just get less of the photo.

Actually, at 6 inches, you'll be able to capture that 35mm object, but only see 22mm of it! The size of the image at the focal plane will be the same for both film and 300d.

I completely understand the crop factor - in fact, that's my point. The engraving on the lens barrel refers to image size, not magnification. Most users seem to think in terms of magnification in the final image. I stated there is no gain in resolution.

PS re the Sigma 50 - I'm sure it's a fine lens. But I bought the Canon because it will do what I want, compatibility is guaranteed, and it will have a better resale value (probably).

Cheers
Nigel


Nigel Puttick
North Yorkshire, UK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,929 posts
Likes: 337
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Dec 14, 2004 12:42 as a reply to  @ puttick's post |  #7

puttick wrote:
Actually, at 6 inches, you'll be able to capture that 35mm object, but only see 22mm of it! The size of the image at the focal plane will be the same for both film and 300d.

That's exactly what I meant... maybe not quite what I said though ;)


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
puttick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Mar 2002
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
     
Dec 24, 2004 09:24 |  #8

Interestingly, in Canon's latest CPS Newsletter (no 10) there is an article on Macrophotography By Greg Basco. He writes:

"One of the things I like about the Canon 10D is its 1.6x magnification factor. This is a true gift for the macrophotographer as it allows us to gain increased magnification at a reasonable working distance. This is especially helpful when shooting close-up portraits of animals like vipers."

See: http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/home.jsp (external link)

I rest my case!


Nigel Puttick
North Yorkshire, UK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,929 posts
Likes: 337
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Dec 25, 2004 23:51 as a reply to  @ puttick's post |  #9

puttick wrote:
Interestingly, in Canon's latest CPS Newsletter (no 10) there is an article on Macrophotography By Greg Basco. He writes:

"One of the things I like about the Canon 10D is its 1.6x magnification factor. This is a true gift for the macrophotographer as it allows us to gain increased magnification at a reasonable working distance. This is especially helpful when shooting close-up portraits of animals like vipers."

He's wrong: it's a crop factor, not a magnification factor. The only way to get 1.6* magnificantion is by changing the lens, adding filters, that sort of thing. The difference with the 10D is they just slapped in a smaller sensor. Sure, you get a picture that has the same content as a camera with a full frame sensor and a 1.6* greater length lens, but you miss on detail.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Burdy
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Delft, Netherlands
     
Dec 26, 2004 00:57 |  #10

You can use a Teleconverter 1.4 combinded with a 12mm extension tube to get 1:1.
The Teleconverter is very usefull on your 70-200!

Bram




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jylitalo
Member
Avatar
194 posts
Joined Mar 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
     
Dec 31, 2004 14:50 |  #11

puttick wrote:
Consider an object with a horizontal dimension of 36mm. With the lens set for a reproduction ratio of 1:2 the size of the image at the film plane, on full-frame 35mm film (36x24mm), would be 18mm wide. The same lens on the 300d, with the same lens flange to image distance of course, will give the same sized actual image, i.e. 18mm wide. But this image will be on a 22mm wide imaging chip, so while the actual (optical) reproduction ratio remains the same at 1:2, in relation to the frame size the effective reproduction ratio becomes 22/18 or approx 1:1.22. This is quite close to the 1:1 everyone seems to want, but think they need a different lens to achieve.

Just to verify something... with 20D (or 300D, 10D and other 1.6x cameras), 1:2 macro would be able to capture areas, which are only 45x30mm (without any additional cropping) ?
I currently have 17-40/4, 50/1.8 II, 70-200/4 and old 28-80/3.5-5.6 for my dSLR. None of these lenses seem to be able to win my old Canon G3, which can be used to capture 55x41mm on its small 4Mpix sensor in macro mode. With dSLR, I keep on finding myself in situations, where I am too close to target for lens to focus (70-200mm might be able to do it at 200mm end, but it needs space, relatively fast shutter speed and so on).
From what I've read on this forum, 100/2.8 is generally considered to be the better choice for macro. However, at this point, I don't want to have yet another lens to be carried with tent, sleeping bag, etc. to hiking trips, and 50mm macro could work as good replacement for my 50/1.8 II. On those trips, 50/2.5 macro would give me macro lens for plants, flowers, berries, etc. and I could use that same lens in the evening around campfire, where I need faster lens than what f4 zooms has to offer.

puttick wrote:
Incidentally, my reasons for choosing the 50mm over the 100mm:
1. Cost
2. Size
3. Fills the gap nicely between my 17-40 and 70-200
4. Greater depth of field for a given field of view due to shorter focal length

These are also good arguments for 50mm macro. Number four especially is good, since I don't normally take tripod to hiking trips, vacations, etc.. Instead of tripod, I use my hiking stick (which has screw on it) as monopod.

- Juha, http://www.ylitalot.ne​t/ (external link)


- Juha - ylitalot.com (blog (external link), portfolio (external link), gear list (external link), etc.)

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

2,206 views & 0 likes for this thread
Effective Reproduction ratio 50/2.5 macro
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
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 QBCanonguy
726 guests, 262 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.