macro 1:2 vs 1:1

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!

get a real macro lens

macro junkie wrote in post #6819679
get a real macro lens

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

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

Dave

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.

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

dpastern wrote in post #6823662
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

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

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m …ns_compare/1_2_​vs_1_1.htm

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m …ns_compare/1_2_​vs_1_1.htm

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

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.

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.

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

once again Jon to the rescue . 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

cedm wrote in post #6817858
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.

PacAce wrote in post #6826310
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