Ok I can't seem to get to the bottom of this, what is a macro lens and how it is different from a zoom lens?
Cause obviously if there is something out there I don't have I NEED it but I can't justify it when my husband says "what does that do for you?" and my answer is "maybe you didn't hear me I don't HAVE one."
Oh, yes, someone please explain. I have same question! When I mentioned the same thing to my husband the other day, he said, "isn't your zoom a macro?"
Well put simply, a zoom lens will allow you to bring far away things closer, whilst a macro lens will allow you to focus on very close things.
So you'd want a zoom to take a picture of, for instance, footballers on a football pitch, but a macro lens to get down on your knees and take a picture of the blades of grass they are standing on.
However, just to confuse matters, many zoon lenses also have a macro setting - as manipulating the position of the internal elements allows the lens to perform either function.
@styru Actually, you have described a zoom telephoto lens. There are also wide angle zooms that do not bring far away objects closer, but they allow you to choose from different wide angle focal lengths. A zoom lens is a mechanical assembly of lens elements for which the focal length can be varied, as opposed to a fixed focal length (prime) lens).
a zoom lens that doubles as a macro will never be satisfying if you want an extreme close up of something. You can either buy an actual macro lens (pricey) or you can buy a macro extension tube (which isn't a tube at all - it looks more like a filter you screw on to the end of your lens) which is much cheaper. If you're not sure you'll love macro photography, you should go with a macro extension tube...macro photography is a pain, imho, so I can't see myself ever justifying the expense of an actual macro lens because I'd never do enough macro photography to justify the expense. But I did get a macro extension tube. I don't use it much at all.
A "true" macro lens allows reproduction of the subject on the film or sensor at 1:1 magnification, i.e. life size. While some zoom lenses do have a 'macro' setting, I think (so could easily be wrong!) that they don't manage this 1:1 reproduction. They certainly don't allow close focusing - my Canon EF-70-300 has a macro setting at 1.5m from the subject, whereas my Sigma 105mm macro focusses at only 30cm from the subject. As with any zoom lens there is a compromise - it can't be brilliant at every focal distance, whereas macro lenses are prime lenses and therefore only have to be good at that one focal length.
So the simple answer to your husband is a macro lens will do close up photography better than using your zoom lens, but it will mean that he'll have more kit to carry around for you ;)
And Jeff @jsw0109 makes a very valid point - depending on your style of photography, a macro lens might end up just being a heavy waste of money because it does have limited use. I use mine a lot, so wouldn't be without it, and would happily buy it again at double the price.
my macro lens is my favorite lens. Love it! You can do lots of different things with a macro lens, it doesn't have to be used strictly for close ups.
I don't think an investment in a macro lens would ever be a waste of money.
while I have both macro and zoom lenses and use both very differently, I too, wonder what makes a macro lens a macro lens -- from an inner workings perspective. Just one of those things I've mused on....
@jsw0109 Just to give you a completely different perspective, I have used my macro lens for virtually all of my 365 shots! While its great for closeup, I find its a wonderful all around lens, and especially wonderful for portraits (see today's glamour shot of a chicken! ). So, my vote is for buying a macro lens and using it for lots of stuff!
@jsw0109
> or you can buy a macro extension tube (which isn't a tube at all - it looks
> more like a filter you screw on to the end of your lens) which is much
> cheaper.
Uhh. No. Extension tubes look exactly like tubes; they go between the lens and the body, which moves the image plane away from the optical center... and makes the image bigger on the sensor. You can still get a nice sharp image with these, but you usually loose autofocus and aperture control etc.
You're describing macro filters, which look like bulbous filters and work like sellotaping a cheap magnifying glass to the front of the lens. Nasty, things that they are. You'll keep autofocus with 'em, but the image'll still be soft regardless.
@intymalcolm its a shame no one corrected the post on the thread where I asked about extension tubes a long time ago... that's why I thought what I bought was an extension tube. I even asked why people were calling them that when they didn't look like tubes and no one bothered to provide the info you did, the responses were the same as what I mentioned above...so THANK YOU for the information!!!!
I'm glad this is complicated because it makes me feel less stupid.
What I'm using now calls itself a canon zoom lens ef-s 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6
which I think means I can only get as close as roughly a foot away from a thing
I also have a 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 that is...well...perhaps how to put this, still in bubble wrap.
The Valentines Fairy has offered to bring me a new lens but wanted specifics which I did not so much know.
@danitech I'll check this out. I'm at work, they don't have yuotube blocked but it buffers and is really frustrating. Oh the commercials work great, just not the video.
A - there's no such thing as a stupid question
B - go for the macro lens! You won't be sorry. It'll become your favorite lens and will rarely come off your camera - worth every penny! I've used mine for everything from extreme close ups to portraits, to street photography, to landscapes. It's faster than any of my zooms and lighter in weight. All things to consider.
Love my macro. Not just for super close ups of bugs etc... It's my fav lens for food photography I do for restaurant reviews. Makes everything look delicious. :)
I agree wholeheartedly with Elke @timandelke - my superb new Canon 100mm macros lens (the one with IS) is almost always a go-to lens in so many different situations. . .and before this, the plain old superb Canon 100mm macro was used in exactly the same way. I'm SO lucky that my husband cheerfully understands, read and studies the science and technology and really thought I needed the upgrade. . .happy Lyn!!
I would suggest, unwrapping your other lens, and learning them first. I am just a couple of years into photography, and I think I need more time with both lenses (same as yours) before moving into macro (fav). If you overwhelm yourself learning three lenses, it will inhibit your personal growth with the basics.......take the IOU from the Valentine's fairy and use it on a great tripod, a backup drive for your pics....etc. @aponi
@intymalcolm@jsw0109
I guess I'm fortunate because my extension tubes allow me to retain auto focus and aperture control. I guess my husband did good when he made a "blind" purchase.
I do find that my images are still lacking what I'm looking for in macro so I'll have to save up for both a 100mm macro and the 70-200 2.4L that I want...
Another thing to consider with macro lenses is the focal length. A longer focal length allows you to be further away from the subject when you achieve the 1:1 (and other) ratios. This is important when you want to take things that are alive and independently move like ladybirds and bees. Shorter focal lengths (say 50mm) are good on normally static objects like flowers and and the sharp end of a pencil. Shorter macro lenses are also lighter. I have three macro lenses acquired over time, a Sigma 50mm, Nikon 105VR and Sigma 150. I tend to use the latter two more than the 50mm and choose between those two based on if I will be carrying a tripod. The 150mm used as a macro really needs a tripod and a fairly robust one at that (it is not the new Sigma OS version)
I agree that next week is too soon for me to jump into macro territory. I might try to wait it out until Christmas and then I'll know more about exactly what I want.
Guess what he wants for Valentine's Day
floor mats
for his car
for Valentines Day
@l2lumom Ah, yours are clearly not as cheap as mine :)
I use manual focus and flash when I'm shooting macro, even with my 70mm macro lens and no tubes, so it's no great loss :)
Stupid question is only 1 never asked. If you have the cash buy a macro lens that is dedicated to the task. If you have a zoom which has "macro" then try it. You can buy filters that boost the macro part for a few pounds from 7dayshop.com.
If you don't know what it is, you probably don't need it. Also consider Google for very simple questions, or search the threads for the many discussions of macros lenses which have already been held.
Helen and Jeff have given very good answers. I have a 100mm and a 30mm macro lens. They do the same thing with different perspectives. I have posted several images recently from an aquarium. I used my 30mm macro on some and 35mm prime on others. I did not check what lens I used before I posted, but you can go look at the EXIF info to see what lens was used and the difference in the perspective. The macro will generally show more vivid detail than the prime.
to recap, I asked a question warning that it was a stupid question. If you were just going to essentially tell me to take a hike a google it, why did you bother opening it?
what you said came across to me as very grumpy, curt, and no not very helpful
I'm new to DSLR photography but not to the internet. It kills a website for people who have been around for a long time to summarily dismiss anyone who mentions something that has been discussed before. It's boring to only have zombie posts.
@aponi Not a stupid question. I've read a lot of the threads on Macro and find you get good answers in one thread and then you get brilliant answers in another thread from different people with differing views and knowledge. Revisiting these topics is good because you just don't know who is available at any given time to answer. It will be a while before I buy a new lens, however, I'm keen to learn more...so thank you for this thread and thank you to those who contribute :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
So you'd want a zoom to take a picture of, for instance, footballers on a football pitch, but a macro lens to get down on your knees and take a picture of the blades of grass they are standing on.
However, just to confuse matters, many zoon lenses also have a macro setting - as manipulating the position of the internal elements allows the lens to perform either function.
...............................
>>Feeling Blue - my 365
Personally I like my elements properly fixed in place - give me a prime any day....
So the simple answer to your husband is a macro lens will do close up photography better than using your zoom lens, but it will mean that he'll have more kit to carry around for you ;)
And Jeff @jsw0109 makes a very valid point - depending on your style of photography, a macro lens might end up just being a heavy waste of money because it does have limited use. I use mine a lot, so wouldn't be without it, and would happily buy it again at double the price.
This is it:
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/photography-video-forum/40400-industar-50-2-because-sometimes-its-good-get-back-basics.html
I don't think an investment in a macro lens would ever be a waste of money.
@jsw0109 Just to give you a completely different perspective, I have used my macro lens for virtually all of my 365 shots! While its great for closeup, I find its a wonderful all around lens, and especially wonderful for portraits (see today's glamour shot of a chicken! ). So, my vote is for buying a macro lens and using it for lots of stuff!
How to save money with your macro photography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiPzTMUAWs8
Macro photography - some surprising results: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3UQH8TlXo
> or you can buy a macro extension tube (which isn't a tube at all - it looks
> more like a filter you screw on to the end of your lens) which is much
> cheaper.
Uhh. No. Extension tubes look exactly like tubes; they go between the lens and the body, which moves the image plane away from the optical center... and makes the image bigger on the sensor. You can still get a nice sharp image with these, but you usually loose autofocus and aperture control etc.
You're describing macro filters, which look like bulbous filters and work like sellotaping a cheap magnifying glass to the front of the lens. Nasty, things that they are. You'll keep autofocus with 'em, but the image'll still be soft regardless.
What I'm using now calls itself a canon zoom lens ef-s 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6
which I think means I can only get as close as roughly a foot away from a thing
I also have a 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 that is...well...perhaps how to put this, still in bubble wrap.
The Valentines Fairy has offered to bring me a new lens but wanted specifics which I did not so much know.
@danitech I'll check this out. I'm at work, they don't have yuotube blocked but it buffers and is really frustrating. Oh the commercials work great, just not the video.
I'm not after one, I just keep seeing them.
@hehe1308 that camera bag is getting heavy especially with the tripod coming along
B - go for the macro lens! You won't be sorry. It'll become your favorite lens and will rarely come off your camera - worth every penny! I've used mine for everything from extreme close ups to portraits, to street photography, to landscapes. It's faster than any of my zooms and lighter in weight. All things to consider.
I guess I'm fortunate because my extension tubes allow me to retain auto focus and aperture control. I guess my husband did good when he made a "blind" purchase.
I do find that my images are still lacking what I'm looking for in macro so I'll have to save up for both a 100mm macro and the 70-200 2.4L that I want...
Guess what he wants for Valentine's Day
floor mats
for his car
for Valentines Day
the honeymoon is so over
cries
@lyno I love that snowflake picture
I use manual focus and flash when I'm shooting macro, even with my 70mm macro lens and no tubes, so it's no great loss :)
Anyone who has a suggestion is an idiot?
to recap, I asked a question warning that it was a stupid question. If you were just going to essentially tell me to take a hike a google it, why did you bother opening it?
what you said came across to me as very grumpy, curt, and no not very helpful
I'm new to DSLR photography but not to the internet. It kills a website for people who have been around for a long time to summarily dismiss anyone who mentions something that has been discussed before. It's boring to only have zombie posts.
in short - lighten up dude
that is all