what makes a macro lens different?

[lizziebelle]

I'm still pretty new to the world of dSLR, so I'm not sure what the difference between a macro lens and a telephoto lens is. Is there a difference? Thanks!

[southernbelle]

Good question..I have been wondering the same thing. I am new to the dslr world too.

[Liz Caldwell]

Actually, that's pretty simple... Macro just means that you can set the lens to focus closer than it normally would. For example, my film camera has a macro lens. Without the macro activated, I can focus as close as 2.5 feet, with macro, I can get as close as 14 inches. This is handy for those nice flower shots, bugs and other small objects.

[Nicole]

Not necessarily always true about the focal distance being better, since some of those long macros may have longer focusing distances, but the main difference is the ability to reproduce things at at least 1:1 so the item is the same size on the sensor that it is in real life. Telephotos can't usually get that 1:1 ratio without some extra help.

[wulf]

Let's not make things too simple. Some lenses sold as "macro" only allow 1:2 or less. However, that still makes small things seem huge. On my D40, with a sensor about 25mm wide, I could take a picture of a ruler with a 1:2 lens and see 50mm across the frame. However, each mm on the ruler would be about 60px wide (3008x2000 is the max size on the D40) - if I got that in focus, that is an impressive amount of detail and far closer than the naked eye can see.

Wulf

[inkista]

Macro describes the ability of the lens to focus closely on an object. The lens usually has a longer focus helical (i.e., instead of having to add a tube to get closer focus, the focus path is already extended) and floating elements that allow independent movement, rather than all elements racking back and forth in unison. This allows the lens to focus closer than in non-macro lenses and is some heavy-duty high-precision engineering. So, real macro lenses (the ones that let you focus at 1:1) tend to be very very sharp.

You don't need a macro lens to do close-up photography. You can use extension tubes, reversed lenses, or close-up filters as alternate methods. However, these alternatives, while being a lot cheaper, are far more restricted in terms of focus--you lose the ability to focus to infinity, and the ability to vary the subject distance and still remain in focus.

Telephoto, otoh, describes the focal length of the lens--its ability to "zoom in" on something. It's a different kind of magnification. Typically, lenses with focal lengths longer than 100mm are referred to as telephotos, although lenses in the 50-100mm range can also be called telephotos technically. Around 50mm is the "normal"/"walkaround" range, and 35mm and below is typically referred to as "wide angle".

[ccallana]

Shooting with an APS-C sized dSLR complicates matters... a "normal" or "standard" lens is usually approx. the same as the diaginal of the sensor/film. So on 35mm film, Standard was around 50mm (really closer to 43 mm) - on APS-C is somewhere around 28mm.

Anything shorter than "normal" is considered Wide Angle, anything longer, telephoto. - but again, technically depends on the format of the capture. On medium format sometimes 75mm is normal (have I confused you yet)

Like mentioned, macro is technically 1:1 or greater magnification - so a 25mm bug fills the entire frame. Its an overused term however, typically meaning anything close focused these days..

[Nobie]

It bothers me when a lens claims "macro" when it is just 1:2. I'm not sure about Canon, but I know Nikkor is guilty of this.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by Nobie

It bothers me when a lens claims "macro" when it is just 1:2. I'm not sure about Canon, but I know Nikkor is guilty of this.

I'm not too bothered about the extension of the word macro. I now have the equipment to do true macro photography and, to be honest, I hardly use it because it is so demanding. There is such a small tolerance for focusing and depth of field.

I could probably make it easier if I was willing to throw a lot more money at the problem, with ring flash units and a rock steady tripod with fine-tuning adjustors but I am doing this as one of my hobbies and don't want to make the extra investment at present.

Since the images I get can be viewed on screen at a size that is far larger than real life and since the details are crisp, I think it is not unreasonable to call them "macro". It's close enough for me

Wulf

[bindibadgi]

I think some manufacturers now refer to a lens as macro if it can focus on an object less than 1 meter from the film plane or something like that. That's how the Canon 24-105L gets called macro as well even though it's nowhere near 1:1, or even 1:2 for that matter.

For me, so long as I can figure it out for myself I don't really care too much what they call it. It would annoy me if they didn't quote the magnification though, because then you just can't tell at all.