lens advice - macro 1:1 vs 1:4

[erotavlas]

Hi I wanted to get another lens for my sony nex
I have two choices,

sony 30mm f3.5 macro 1:1
or
sony 24mm zeiss f1.8 prime (in terms of macro its a 1:4)

If I'm interested in taking macro photos with the 24mm lens, will I be able to achieve something similar to what I can get with the 1:1 macro lens. For instance say both lenses are exactly the same distance from the subject - what difference would I see in the image?

 

[Robin Usagani]

1:4 isnt really a true macro lens. It means the first lens can have your subject 4X as big (closer minimum focus distance).

With the first lens you can shoot an object about the same size as your sensor, you can fill the whole frame with that subject.
With the second one, you can shoot an object about the same size as your sensor, but you can only fill 1/4 of the sensor (half the width & length) to show the whole subject.

 

[erotavlas]

So if both lenses are the about the same distance from the subject, the 1:4 lens image will look 25% smaller in the frame? is that how it works?

 

[TheBiles]

So if both lenses are the about the same distance from the subject, the 1:4 lens image will look 25% smaller in the frame? is that how it works?

No, it will look 4 times smaller.

Edit: At minimum focal distance.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

No, at the same distance you will see the same image pretty much (very small difference due to the focal length difference ). The focal lengths are fairly close so I am assuming the Angle of View is fairly close as well. This is what determines what a lens can fit into the frame. The Macro is referring to how much you can magnify the subject. So if you were shooting the tip of a ball point pen....you could get closer with the 1:1 macro and effectively make the subject (the pen tip) 4x larger with the 1:1 than you could with the 1:4. The closer/larger the object is in the frame, the more fine detail you can see. For most common 1:1 macro applications, I think most people would say that a longer focal length (100mm or 150mm) is typically more useful than shorter ones.


See if this is easier....

If I have two 50mm lenses. One can be no less than 8 inches from the subject when focusing and the other can be no less than 2 inches from the subject when focusing, which would give you a closer up image, the one that is 2 inches from the subject or the one that is 8 inches? ( remember they are both the same focal length ) This is what the 1:4 and 1:1 are referring to essentially.

 

[erotavlas]

No, at the same distance you will see the same image pretty much (very small difference due to the focal length difference ). The focal lengths are fairly close so I am assuming the Angle of View is fairly close as well. This is what determines what a lens can fit into the frame. The Macro is referring to how much you can magnify the subject. So if you were shooting the tip of a ball point pen....you could get closer with the 1:1 macro and effectively make the subject (the pen tip) 4x larger with the 1:1 than you could with the 1:4. The closer/larger the object is in the frame, the more fine detail you can see. For most common 1:1 macro applications, I think most people would say that a longer focal length (100mm or 150mm) is typically more useful than shorter ones.


See if this is easier....

If I have two 50mm lenses. One can be no less than 8 inches from the subject when focusing and the other can be no less than 2 inches from the subject when focusing, which would give you a closer up image, the one that is 2 inches from the subject or the one that is 8 inches? ( remember they are both the same focal length ) This is what the 1:4 and 1:1 are referring to essentially.

I think the 50mm that you can move 2 inches from the subject would give you a closer image (i.e. the image would fill the frame more) Is that correct?

 

[Robin Usagani]

a 150mm 1:1 macro will give you the same subject size (different angle of view) as a 60mm 1:1 macro if you focus at the minimum focusing distance.

 

[unpopular]

With my bellows and a 50mm Rodagon I can get anywhere from about 1:8 to 10:1. So neener neener!

Seriously, though, if you don't mind manual focus and manual aperture, I maintain that this is the best and least expensive option for some subjects. If you want focus confirmation get an M42 adapter with an AF chip. At 10:1 with 13cm+ extension, it's pretty essential.

 

[erotavlas]

With my bellows and a 50mm Rodagon I can get anywhere from about 1:8 to 10:1. So neener neener!

Seriously, though, if you don't mind manual focus and manual aperture, I maintain that this is the best and least expensive option for some subjects. If you want focus confirmation get an M42 adapter with an AF chip. At 10:1 with 13cm+ extension, it's pretty essential.

interesting, do you think there is something I can add on to the 24mm prime that would turn it into a macro? that is cheaper than buying both lenses

 

[unpopular]

Well, you can always add extension. But 24mm is really REALLY short and you'll have like no working distance, also not all lenses will perform equally with extension, but that gets into more of the physics end of things which I do not understand as well.

There are drawbacks to extension, such as bellows compensation, you'll prob want a focussing rail since magnification isn't fixed.

 

[Overread]

How "macro" do you want to go with the lens? A 30mm 1:1 macro lens has a working distance of less than 1inch, which is very very restrictive. Its not impossible to use, but being that close makes lighting very hard (not only that but you are going to be shadowing your subject with the lens). I've a 35mm macro lens myself and will typically use it mostly as a close up lens rather than full macro.

If you have some example of shots you would like to take or situations it would help in working out just how much magnification you are roughly aiming to get with the lens.

As for the 24mm chances are you won't be able to get that much additional magnification from it. Yes you can add extension tubes, but with only 24mm in focal length you'll quickly find that the point of focus moves inside the lens itself (that is it becomes unable to focus on anything).

 

[greybeard]

Those lenses are apples and oranges. The Zeiss is around $1,000 and is intended as a super high quality "Normal" lens for your 4/3 format. The Sony is a true Macro and runs around $250. I'm sure it is a descent lens but I doubt if it is in the same league as the Zeiss. I've owned a couple of Zeiss lenses and the quality both optical and mechanical is 2nd to none.

 

[erotavlas]

How "macro" do you want to go with the lens? A 30mm 1:1 macro lens has a working distance of less than 1inch, which is very very restrictive. Its not impossible to use, but being that close makes lighting very hard (not only that but you are going to be shadowing your subject with the lens). I've a 35mm macro lens myself and will typically use it mostly as a close up lens rather than full macro.

If you have some example of shots you would like to take or situations it would help in working out just how much magnification you are roughly aiming to get with the lens.

As for the 24mm chances are you won't be able to get that much additional magnification from it. Yes you can add extension tubes, but with only 24mm in focal length you'll quickly find that the point of focus moves inside the lens itself (that is it becomes unable to focus on anything).

I agree, I thought about the working distance and I think that in situations where I am outside, I'll have a hard time with position and lighting since my camera and or myself / tripod would be getting too close. I decided to hold off on the macro and just get the 24mm prime for now...at least it gets me a bit closer than my kit lens.

My alternative to the 30mm for a macro is any other DSLR macro fitted to my camera with an adaptor. From the specs online it looks like any of them would give me more working distance than the sony

I guess I'm wanting to use the macro outdoors mostly, pictures of nature, flowers and bugs or other natural objects. Not interested in jewlery.

 

[KmH]

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

You should be able to turn that SPAM off somewhere on your device.

 

[TheBiles]

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

You should be able to turn that SPAM off somewhere on your device.

I keep it there to represent. I'm not technologically illiterate.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk