Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 17, 2008, 11:21 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14
Default

On the Canon site it shows that with the 100mm f2.8, the closest focusing distance is about 1 foot. It also says it affords a "long working distance of 5.9". I understand the first spec but not the second. Also, what makes a macro a macro anyway? Is it that the lens is specialized to work only in close proximity to magnify the subject? Telephoto lenses seem to all have a "macro" designation at the far end. But you are telescoping to that point so you don't have to stand close. I would assume that those don't match the quality of a dedicated (good) macro and also that the magnification can't be as powerful. Thanks in advance, Janet
sketchpad is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 18, 2008, 4:50 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Hello Janet,

I'll try to answer quick. I spent the best part of an hour writing my last reply to you, as clearly as I could!

Basically the "closest focussing distance" standard is written from the BACK of the lens (that is, where the lens meets the camera). So if you have a closest focussing distance of 50cm but your lens is 15cm long, then in theory you should be able to focus on something at 35cm away from the FRONT of your lens. I'm 90% sure this 35cm is referred to as the "working distance". (sorry I work in cm, not imperial - though I know 12 inches = 1 foot). and 1 inch is 2.54 cm. anyway... besides the point!)

A macro lens is specially designed to be able to focus CLOSE - which will allow you to get LARGER images of (usually) small things like insects, flowers, coins, blades of grace, your finger, etc. Because you know from life, that the closer your finger is to your eye the bigger it "appears". However unless you know how to use the camera (e.g. it needs to be REALLY steady with macro photography) and lighting can be tricky at close working distances, you might not often need to be "as close as your lens can get you" - e.g. with your 100mm f2.8 lens. Furthermore if you use f2.8 at the closest focussing distance on your 100mm macro lens you will have a VERY think depth of field "dof". That means only a millimetre or two will be in focus, everything else will be out of focus (oof!)

You are right that a dedicated macro lens will generally be able to capture superior quality images than a "zoom lens" which also has "macro capabilities". Maybe the most significant aspect is, as you mention the "magnification ratio". That is, the dedicated macro lens should be able to get you about 1:1 (life size on the SENSOR) magnification, which means you can display on your screen or print out an insect at a LARGE size. A zoom which can do "macro" might only have a 1:2 or 1:3 macro capability, which is still probably fine for 90% of average DSLR users.

I don't have a "dedicated macro lens".... actually I am almost envious of your 100mm f2.8 lens, that is a great macro lens. However I have got many flower shots and even some insects with my 28-135mm lens and my 18-55mm ("kit" lens), which I'm very happy with. For one example, taken with my 28-135mm zoom lens is posted below.

Please let me say (and no reflection on you, neither is this any praise for myself, I consider myself a "modest amateur")... but there are many people with simple cameras or the "basic lenses" who take much superior photos to other people who have bought the best and most expensive and most "capable lenses". 90% of the success of "amazing" photography is to do with the photographer, rather than his or her tools! I'm learning something every month about how to improve my photography techniques.. I'm glad you seem to be keen to learn lots too. Enjoy the learning. Treat it as a valuable and beautiful part (or "art") of life!

Regards,

Paul
Attached Images
 
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2008, 3:53 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14
Default

Hi Paul, thank you for responding. Your explanation is very clear. Although it probably doesn't appear to be the case (given what I've invested in at such an early stage) I absolutely know the truth of your last paragraph. Good equipment doesn't makea goodphotographer any more than a Ferrari makesa good driver. However, the Ferrari will makeMs. Joe Coollook pretty lame during a run whenshe's slowing everyone down and it's obviousshe bought more car than she can handle...not that I own a Ferrari

Thanks again for your time. As well as being skilled, you are a very kind person. That's a rarity these days.

INCREDIBLEPHOTO!!!!
sketchpad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 12:58 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

Janet,

Canon literature refers to the distance from the lens to create a 1X or life size image. Your lens is a very capable tool ,have fun with it. I have enjoyed floral macros for years. It has become such a passion that I now garden with photography in mind.

Tom


Attached Images
 
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.