Could someone please explain the differences between these two types of lenses. Also could someone please tell me how to read the magnification levels after the lense (ex. 1:1, 1:2). Thanks!
Nikon felt like being different so they call their macro lenses "micro." They're really the same thing. And as for the numbers, they represent size on film:actual size of subject. So 1:1 would be life size, 1:2 half of that, so on and so forth.
In terms of brand names it is exactly as spiralout explained. Not relevant to you but I'll throw in some useless information. There is a difference between microphotography and macrophotograph though. Macro is close, micro is very close. Normally involving microscopes.
1:1 is as good as you can get without magnifying the subject at all. 1:1 would technically fill the frame with whatever you are shooting. md
It's not a case of closer as such, but rather magnification. 1:1 is life size. The image on the negative will be the same size as it is in real life. A finger nail 10mm long will be 10mm long. When you get in printed it'll be bigger, but we're talking about negatives here as prints can be different sizes but all 35mm negatives are the same size. 1:2 means the image will be half the size. So a 10mm finger nail will be 5mm long on the negative. As a result more of what surrounds to finger nail will be in the picture. 1:4 means it'll be 2.5mm long. And so on. You can, if you wish, say that 1:1 lets you get closer than 1:4. But, you can confuse yourself when you start talking about the minimum focus distance of a lens. That is, how close a lens can be to a subject and still be able to focus. No questions are basic. "How do you spell apple?" can be seen a basic question. But when you pop out of the womb how many know how to spell it?
When people take pictures of insects and the manification looks like it was taken under a microscope, is that done with just a macro lens or is that coupled with extension tubes (which I know nothing about) and/or something else?
If it looks like it was taken with a microscope, it was probably taken with a microscope. This was taken with an electron microscope: http://www.urban-resources.net/images/photomicrographs/photomicrographs_01.jpg That's from Claudia Fahrenkemper. She had a show of insects and seeds taken through the microscope last spring at the gallery I volunteer at. Crazy stuff when seen up close. :shock:
