Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

I'm always confused with lenses that say macro. Some are telephoto, but have a macro capability, too. I know...true macro is a prime lens..yada yada yada. Been digging around this site for the answer, and I found that ditty.

I have a Tokina 50-250mm telephoto that also has a macro capability. The only indication is the word "MACRO" to the left of the focusing distance numbers. I know it does both because I used to use it regularly (mostly as a telephoto) on my Canon AE-1.

I also have a Kiron 80-200mm f/4.5 MACRO 1:4 lens that I've never actually used. From what I can determine, it's only for macro photography, not as a telephoto (e.g., birds in a tree). Am I right? Here's a link for more info on it:
http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_3673.html

How does one know if a lens is a macro-only lens, or if it's a "regular" *and* macro?

The glass on this Kiron lens is very clean. I don't see any signs of fungus, and looking through it shows that it should give pretty crisp results. So, I was thinking about getting a glassless adapter to convert it to my Canon EOS mount.

Thoughts?

Ranjan Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!

Image quality considerations aside (sharpness, contrast, color reproduction, resolution, lack of distortions etc...), macro is really about 'relative image size'. Relative to object size, of course. If a lens can capture an image that is of the same size as of the object etc then it is a macro-capable.

The better corrected it is, the pricier it would be. Whether it is a prime or zoom or what its focal length is are secondary considerations, although these may have practical importance.

Such as, would one prefer a 55 mm macro or 200 mm macro for shooting macro-closeups of hornets?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

With a reproduction limit of 1:4, this does not sound like much of a macro lens even if it was flat field..

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

"True Macro" has nothing to do with zoom or fixed focal length, or to do with focal length at all for that matter!

Technically (which is to say pedantically) if the image projected onto the sensor is 10x the size of the object, it's a "micro" lens; at 1x it is a "macro" lens, and less than 1x is a "closeup" lens. Nobody pays much attention to that, except here on UHH there is a schism about "true macro" vs "closeup". It really isn't important.

For whatever reasons, lens marketing has a different view. Nikon calls all of their macro lenses "Micro Nikkor". Most manufacturers label a lens that can do 1:2 (1/2 lifesize) as having macro ability. And many will label a zoom lens that can do 1:4 as a macro.

Your Kiron 80-200mm will do 1:4. It is a sharp enough lens, but with only 6 aperture blades it will have some harsh bokeh too.

If you really want to try photomacrography... get your hands on a Kino Precision Optical 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. They might be labeled as a Kiron, or as a Lester A. Dine, or as a Vivitar, and there are several other brands too. The Vivitar versions may be listed as 100mm, and maybe as f/2.5, but if the serial number starts with 22, it's the right stuff. They run from just under $200 up to $400 or more on eBay. Bide your time, find a low cost lens.

Then get a Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter. These things are inexpensive, at less than $50.

Those will cost less and do more than virtually any other macro lens.


Perhaps not the sharpest macro lens around, but with a zoom to 250mm it is more versatile than others.


This lens can be used at all focusing distances in its range. It may not be the slickest 80-200mm lens (a range that sports some of the most expensive and the highest quality zooms from all manufacturers), but it is one of the least expensive ways to find out what that zoom range can do.


There is no such thing. There is just a range of focus, and if the minimum focus distance is short enough to get anything near to 1:1, it's a "macro" lens in someone's mind.


If the adapter is "glassless" it should work well enough to be worth playing with. There is no substitute for experience, and getting inexpensive experience first is a very good idea!

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

To the "true believers" macro is lifesize on the sensor/film up to 10x life, beyond that is "micro".
To almost all lens makers "Macro" means the lens will focus at a very close distance, usually less than a foot, which dependent on the lens may or may not meet the 1:1 criteria.
With a high IQ sensor and lens, plus careful processing and printing you can get detailed, sharp, high IQ images as big or bigger than many "true macro" produced images. To the viewer it won't matter how you got there.

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

A true macro lens is a "flat field" lens. That is, if you take a closeup photo of a magazine page, the entire page can be brought into focus. A lens with a macro on-off feature has a curved field of focus and the edges of the page will be out of focus.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Hi shoeless photographer, you have received some good info on the difference between close-up, macro & micro.
But before you take anyones word about good options to buy, I would like to make you aware that there is a very good macro resource on UHH populated by people who have specialised in macro over a long period of time.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html
The FAQ section and other headlined threads may keep you busy for quite some time.
And the specialist knowledge and skill there is enormous compared to others who might just take a close-up image every now and then.
Knowledge on achieving macro by adapters, reversing lenses, cheap ones that are OK, cheap ones that are junk, recommended focal lengths, lighting techniques and options, macro focusing rails ... all sorts of stuff.
No question too easy or too hard for them.
Someone there will be familiar with your lens and able to tell you where it sits in the scheme of things.

My guess would be that it is OK-ish as a close focus lens, but not worth buying an adapter for just that lens to make it fit your camera.
You may be much better off with a second hand reversed cheap 50mm F/1.8.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The word "macro" is thrown around loosely by lens manufacturers... especially third party manufacturers, but OEM do it sometimes too.

There's some difference of opinion about what "macro" itself actually means. Many experienced shooters have concluded that a macro lens should at least do 1:2 magnification (half life size or 0.5X). Less than that is a "close-up" while more than 1:1 (life size or 1.0X) is "micro". Just to confuse the issue, Nikon calls it's macro lenses "Micro Nikkors" and Zeiss spells theirs "Mikro".

But the term has been very loosely used, particularly with third party lenses such as the Kiron 80-200mm you found. But if you look at 80-200 and 70-200 and 70-210mm lenses, you'll find that 1:4 (one fourth life size or 0.25X) is actually pretty good for a zoom... many that are labeled "macro" actually don't come close to that.

Kiron, incidentally, is a somewhat legendary lens maker. The company Kino Precision was started by several former Nikon engineers and designers. At one point, the Kino CEO supposedly stated that "Kiron is 'Nikkor' spelled sideways", referring to the company's intention to compete with the "big boys", producing high quality, innovative products. There have been a number of "cult classic" Kiron lenses, including some "true macro". They also produced a lot of lenses for other manufacturers, most notably Vivitar marketed quite a few under their name (the Kiron lenses in disqguise were identifiable with the serial number prefix system Vvitar used at the time... the Kino Precision made lenses has a 22xxxxxxx serial number).



The above is correct. The Kiron prime lenses are especially impressive, although their zooms were pretty darned good, too.

One thing about the 80-200mm... what mount is it in now? If it's Canon FD/FL that would work on your AE-1, any "glassless" adapter to use it on an EOS/EF mount camera would not enable it to focus to infinity. (There are some Ed Mika design adapters that do, but they are specific to certain lenses... only a limited number of primes and only Canon OEM as far as I know.)

"True" macro lenses close focusing ability and magnification potential are only part of the story. In most cases, macro lenses also use "long throw" focus... meaning that the focus mechanism emphasizes precision over speed by requiring more rotation of the focus ring (whether manual or AF) to achieve focus. This can make the lens less useful for non-macro purposes, but is needed for more exact focusing when dealing with extremely shallow depth of field that occurs at higher magnifications.

Many "true macro" lenses also are "flat field" design... this means their optics are designed to offer edge-to-edge sharpness at very close focus distances. "Standard" optics may be designed to achieve edge-to-edge sharpness at 6 or 8 feet (portrait distances)... or even farther, depending upon the lens type. Nowhere near macro distances. This is one of the reasons that a non-macro lens with extension tubes or a reversed lens is often considered not quite as good as a "true macro" lens.

I have one vintage, manual focus macro lens that I occasionally use on my EOS cameras. It's a Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 (1:2 or 0.5X with lens alone) that's also very capable. I paid all of $20 for it at a local 2nd hand store... It's an Adaptall2 interchangeable mount lens that's actually designed to be easily adapted for use on many different systems. I'd used several copies of the Tamron 90mm over the years and was already familiar with the interchangeable mount (rather than adapting a different mount) and knew they were available for EOS. The lens was "like new", with caps, hood and the 1:1 adapter... adn with a Nikon F mount on it. I've also got Adaptall2 mounts for vintage Konica, Olympus and Pentax systems. I ordered a "chipped" EOS/EF Adaptall2 mount from China, where they're still being made, for $40 including shipping.

Here's the Tamron lens mounted on one of my EOS cameras, the lens separate and showing the Adaptall2 for Nikon alongside, and a couple example shots taken with it...




Not bad for a $60 investment, IMO. The lens itself goes to 1:2 magnification, but has a matched adapter making it full 1:1 capable (though I usually just use macro extension tubes instead, which give the same result without any optics and are in my camera bag all the time, anyway).

Lens has a 6-bladed aperture... but at macro magnifications is capable of obliterating backgrounds, as you can see in the shot of the two "fuzzy" poppy buds, above. That's SOOC, not post-processing. The background was an ugly gray garbage can some 8 or 10 feet away.

You should know that the lenses you're considering, the vintage Tamron above, or any other vintage adapted lens will be a bit tricky to work with adapted for use on modern autofocus DSLRs. They'll be strictly manual focus, of course. That's not a problem for macro work, typically (in fact, often manual focus is easier for macro). However, they also are strictly manual aperture, which makes them slower to work with and also dims down the camera viewfinder, in turn making focusing harder. Macro shots often require pretty small apertures in search of adequate depth of field (above were both shot at f11), making for VERY dim viewfinders and difficult manual focus.

A couple things can help. One is to get a "chipped" adapter. These correspond to the electronic contacts in the EOS/EF system. The chip doesn't provide AF or aperture control, of course, but does allow the camera's Focus Confirmation feature to work to some extent (at really small apertures it may slow, struggle and even fail). On many EOS DSLRs it also is possible to use Live View combined with Exposure Simulation (to brighten what you see on the LCD monitor).

That's all fine with stationary macro subjects. But I can tell you it's not ideal with faster moving subjects like bees on flowers! For that bee on the orange poppy, it probably took me 15 minutes or half an hour and 50 or 75 shots to get a half dozen well-focused and, from those, a couple I liked enough to keep. Thankfully, several bees were repeatedly visiting the flowers and busy gathering nectar.

If your primary goal is shooting macro and you can live with the slower process using a strictly manual lens, I'd encourage you to be patient. There are literally millions of excellent, vintage "true" macro lenses out there that are very easily and cheaply bought and adapted for use on EOS cameras, though you rarely see as good a deal as I got on the Tamron 90mm. That Tamron is designed to allow for interchangeable mounts... many other vintage lenses are not, but can easily be adapted for use on EOS anyway. See this website for much more info about adapting old lenses for use on your camera: http://bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html. Especially make note of the chart there showing which vintage mounts are practical and easy to adapt, versus those that are difficult and may not be worthwhile (including Canon FD/FL).

Have fun!

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I just got an urge to stir the pot here. I suppose to really have fun I should post this on the "True Macro-Photography" forum and sit back and watch the best fireworks show short of next month.

Being a teacher who was always after his students to use language as a precision tool to avoid confusion over just what you mean I tend to prefer the use of words according to their most common dictionary definition.
And according to the dictionary the only lenses that are labeled properly are the Micro Nikkors.

Macro = "Large in scope or extent; large-scale" So macro refers to something large, like the "world's macro economy". Most photographers use it to mean making something small look like it is large.

Micro = "Basic or small-scale" So micro refers to something small like an atom is a basic building block of an element. Or to continue my economic example the "micro economy of Tinytown". In photography it generally isn't applied this way until you reach 10X on film or sensor.

In the end it is an image that shows something larger than it is in life we are usually talking about when we say "macrophotography". And I personally don't care what kind of lens got to that result. When looking at that poster sized butterfly does it really matter if you used a magnifing lens or enlarged a very high IQ shot from some other lens? The image is the same. Except for a few expensive medium format, older medium format and larger film cameras and some extremely expensive industrial and scientic imaging devices nother most of us have could show the butterfly 1:1 on the sensor.
Yes I know many of the "macro" community are into showing just the butterfly's eye and I know that with those lenses taking pictures of things that small is a techical challenge, esp when it comes to focus and depth of field. They often are taking pictures of things that are too big to show 1:1 on their camera sensor, so why insist on the 1:1 or larger definition when you aren't using it?
Of course there are many who use "macro" lens as short to medium telephotos just for the extreme resolution and high IQ factor.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

You have to look at the specs of the lens, especially the reproduction ratio of a given lens. Anything lower than 1:1 is not a true macro! There are several zooms from Sigma that go to 1:2, that's what one would consider 1/2 macro. Canon's 24-70 comes close with it's 1:1.4, but those are the exceptions. The two lenses you mentioned are no macro lenses at all!

Kuzano

You've had to digest a lot of information in this post.

Boiling it down....

Macro is relative from 1:1 magnifications to 1:4 Magnification. 1:1 is most desirable.... and more expensive.

MANY zoom and other lenses achieve 1:4 magnification...

NOT THAT GREAT.

The second interesting point is about the Kiron lens. Kiron made some of the best glass in the era in which they reigned. Of all the lens mfrs that built lenses for Vivitar, Kiron was one of the best. I use about 3 Kiron zooms adapted to my Olympus Micro 4/3 digital for long zooms. My Kiron 70-210 Vivitar Series 1 gives me a 420mm AOV 35mm equivalent in telephoto. The 1:4 Macro is of no value whatsoever to me. If I want Macro, I will find a true 1:1 macro.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

Lots of good info, folks. Thanks. Will check out the UHH macro links, too.

I've held this lens in front of my old AE-1 to see what it'll do. Looks like your typical telephoto lens as far as I can tell (long throw manual focus, BTW -- love it!). Yes, manual aperture, too. Fine with that as well.

As was pointed out earlier, this claims to be macro. I wasn't sure if it was strictly macro, or a telephoto with a macro feature. Guess it's a telephoto, but I'll be dipped if I can figure out it could be any kind of macro if (according to the specs) I can't get any closer than 41". Thought I'd pick up a $10 MD/MC to EOS adapter for it from eBay for fun. Probably be worth doing that. Any ideas on how this is supposed to do macro photography?

A-PeeR Loc: Houston, Texas

Correct, it is a telephoto lens with close focusing capabilities or as the manufacturer has labeled it "macro".

Photograph a metric ruler at minimum focusing distance to determine native magnification ratio of the lens. At 1:4 you should capture 104mm on an APS-C camera or 144mm on a full frame. If you want to do "true" macro with the lens, the best route is to get a set of extension tubes. 68mm should get you in the 1:1 range at 80mm. Another option to consider would be a diopter. Personally, I prefer tubes - there isn't an IQ hit.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Short answer: No.

I've always loved this:

Definition of an Expert:
A drip under pressure.

I often apply this definition to excessively verbose replies.

I chose to buy a True Macro lens when I jumped.
And I chose to buy a 180mm True Macro to give my subjects some breathing room. (Greater distance from subject to allow for lighting, and to not crowd the subject) ;)

Also, I did not worry about getting an AF Macro lens. Because at Macro, focus is achieved by adjusting your distance.
In Macro amounts...

YMMV ;)

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

This brings me back to one of my original questions:
How does one know if a lens is just a macro lens, or has a macro setting? My Tokina 50-250mm (FD mount) has a macro position on the tube. I can switch it into macro mode and slide the barrel back and forth to focus. That makes it a telephoto *and* a "macro" lens.

When I'm shopping for a lens, some of them say "macro", but how do I know if it's just for macro? Get sooo confusing.

Been considering purchasing a set of tubes. Maybe I should just get the tubes and use them on my Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 which is the sharpest lens I have so far, although for $10 I could get the adapter and see what the Kiron can do, too.

BTW, I have a Fotodiox FD -> EOS adapter for my old FD lenses, but of course I can't use that on the Kiron lens with a MD mount. Would have to get an adapter for that mount.