Macro lens. 1:1 . What does this mean?

[Igor]

Just read the Nikon 200mm lens description and can't understand what "reproduction ratios of up to 1:1 " means. Can anybody explain please?

[Igor]

You mean no matter how far from the lens the fly is it will be 1cm on a CCD anyway?

[Tom Nolle]

The 1:1 ratio of true size to size on the image plane (film or CCD) is usually achieved only at the minimum focus distance for the lens. However, a lens that's 1:1 for 35mm will be even more of a macro lens (1:1.5) on the S2, or you'd be able to get 1:1 reproduction further away because of the focal multiplier effect of the S2.

Tom

[Igor]

Thanks guys!
Another question: what is the minimal focus distance for the 105mm, 200mm, other available macro lenses? Except for 60mm, which (as I understood reading some threads here) is too close-focusing.....

[Tom Nolle]

You'd have to look at the specs, Igor, for each lens. I have the Sigma 180 and I think it's about 9 inches for that lens. I believe that most of the 105s are about 4 or 5 inches.

Tom

[Topngu]

I had this lens,it's will go to 4" for 1:1 and also f stop go to 45!
even on aperture ring shown 32.longer focal u can getting closer,
the longest i saw is 200...but u need any closer used reverse adaptor ring...u can go to1/2"

[crabby]

I have the 105mm macro and it's minimum focus distance is more like 12 inches. It does get down to 1:1. For a lens manufacturer to call a lens a macro it only has to have a 1:4 ratio

[Igor]

Crabby, you mean Nikon or Sigma 105mm lens? Which one's better?

[Topngu]

Don't mix up (2) difference lens) U can buy the lens so & so
WITH....MACRO....option
and the lens
MICRO 1:1....& go to f:stop 45....!!!

[Igor]

Err... Sorry, I just wanted to ask which 105mm lens you have? Nikon or Sigma?

[crabby]

Igor,

I have the 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor. And it (only) stops down to f38.

I never tried the Sigma. It may be an ok lens but I'm sure it isn't better then Nikon's. This is truely a sweet lens. I shoot a lot of small products and this lens does a great job at any fstop. I heard the Sigma looked good in the middle apeture range but the more it was stopped down the less sharp over all the image became.

This lens is also great for portrait/head shots. And of course you really cant beat it for macro.

[Topngu]

craby
i know for sure it's stop down 45...i'llconfirm...54

[S_Leeper]

Originally posted by Tom Nolle
The 1:1 ratio of true size to size on the image plane (film or CCD) is usually achieved only at the minimum focus distance for the lens. However, a lens that's 1:1 for 35mm will be even more of a macro lens (1:1.5) on the S2, or you'd be able to get 1:1 reproduction further away because of the focal multiplier effect of the S2.

Tom

I disagree with your statement. I believe that a 1:1 macro on the S2 will only render 24mm of a wide object (bug, stamp, etc.) at 24mm on the ccd, whereas the same lens with the same focal distance would render a 36mm wide image on the film.

i.e. if you were taking macros of film slides using the S2 at 1:1 you would crop the image. If you used the same setup for a film camera you would get the full image. However, being that I don't have a Nikon film camera I can't make sure.

[Wichita Wayne]

When the lens is set to the 1:1 focal distance the image on the film plane is exactly the same size as the subject. This is a function of the lens only. The size of the film or sensor has nothing to do with that function. The digital sensor simply captures a smaller part of the lenses image than a 35mm negative will capture. That makes your captured image on the digital sensor looked cropped in compared to the full frame 35mm, but that has nothing to do with the lenses field of view and the size of the subject projected on the film plane. Using a small sensor on a digital camera is the same as using a medium format back on a 4X5 view camera. You just take a picture of a smaller portion of the total image that the lens is capable of projecting on the film plane.

[Tom Nolle]

The question of how image size or apparent size/magnification works on an S2 relative to a 35mm is a tough one. The lens throws an image at the focus point that's the same for any given lens. The S2, having a smaller CCD, "crops" the image. Of course, that cropped image doesn't mean anything in itself; it is then captured on a file and put on a PC. The image has a specific resolution. Same with a 35mm image; it's on film at this point.

Now, if we try to compare what we have, we're "apples and oranges", but if we then scan the slide in a typical scanner we end up with an image that has about the same resolution as the S2. Now we can compare. If we do, the S2's 4000-odd pixels were created from a smaller slice of that focal image, and so they will appear larger. Similarly, a macro lens throwing a 1:1 image of a bug on the CCD/film plane will generate an S2 bug that's bigger. In both cases, the difference is the relative size of the subject to the total image.

My point is that whatever you believe to be true about how or why the S2 and other DSLRs have an effective focal multiplier, the same thing will impact macro performance.

Tom