please reply

[robdavis305]

Is there a big difference in a 1:1 and a 1:2 magnification in a macro lens. I thank you for all of your replies.

 

[Jaszek]

Yes

 

[Derrel]

1:1 is life-size, while 1:2 is half life size. On many older macro lenses, or on newer but more compact macro lenses, the lens will reach half life-size as it was sold, but will require an extension ring (a lens-less,hollow metal spacer) to be mounted in between the body and the macro lens; with the extension tube installed, the lens will be able to have enough focusing extension to reach 1:1.

A lens that focuses to 1:2 is much better than many so-called "zoom macro" lenses which often go down to something pathetic like 1:3.8 or 1:4.2,which is hardly macro.

 

[Overread]

Typically speaking any zoom lens which "macro" in the name is not a true macro lens (true macro being 1:1 magnifcatin), however they do have a close focusing setup which is typically around 1:2/1:3.8 area. It is better than no macro certainly, but its not full macro.
For an idea of how this translates in an image this is what you get from 1:2

And this is what a 1:1 macro lens can perform

Quite a difference.***
Typically speaking most of the modern prime (single focal length) macro lenses are full 1:1 macro capable, though there are a few exceptions (eg canon 50mm macro is only a 1:2 unless you get the adaptor for that lens which takes it to 1:1 but at a combined cost equalling that of a full proper 1:1 macro lens)

*** these are older shots I mine and I can't sadly recall if either were at full magnifcation (closest point) but the difference in capture is the impotant part - I will try to see if I have some shots which I am 100% of or get some taken.