We are way out of my depth here (but that never stopped me before). I remember a thread going around about a month ago about macro equivalencies and such, and it made my head spin. (At the very least we can expect to be educated about how magnification, focal length, viewing ratios, etc. are all very different things and shouldn't be mixed up!
)
Let's see. I think the focal length of DSLR lenses mostly governs the distance at which you can shoot -- all things being equal, a 105 mm that goes to 1:1 lets you shoot from further away than the equivalent 60 mm (better for bugs). I don't think the focal length intrinsically contributes to what ratio you can get to.
As for comparing your lens performance with a dedicated DSLR lens, maybe somebody who knows what they are talking about can help. Here's what a reviewer at ImagingResource said about the field at supermacro:
Quote:
|
Based on actual measurements, I found that the C-8080's minimum capture area was only 2.57 x 1.92 inches (65 x 49 millimeters) in normal macro mode, and an exceptional 1.47 x 1.11 inches (37 x 28 millimeters) in Super Macro mode.
|
Apart from gently correcting our errors, is there someone who can tell us if this info helps compare Teewinot's lens performance to that of a dedicated DSLR macro? Is there any way to convert this into an equivalent ration like 1:1, 1:2 etc.?
EL