Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

ROBERTJERL - 1:1 OR GREATER, huh? ....

I know that, Robert ... I have several - both the Nikon and Canon versions of the Sigma 70-300 Macro, the Sigma 18-250 (Nikon) the Tamron 18-200 XR (Pentax) and the Tamron 18-270 Macro (Canon) but I also have some REAL Macros - including Tokina's 35 Pro DX (Nikon) Tamron's 60 f2 (Canon) and Sigma's 105 OS HSM (Sony) ...

DJO

While not a true macro, my Nikon 28/2.8 Ais has a minimum focusing distance of 12 inches and is an excellent lens with no distortion. I don't know if the AF version has the same specs.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Alan Myers ... thanks so much for your very valuable contribution to this post, and your rather too complete treatise on macros.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DJO - is the Nikon 28 f2.8 AIS still available?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Bit of an add-on, I and many others do shots that often look like macro with long lenses, in my case the Canon 100-400L with 1.4X III which focus to aprx 3 feet so on my 7DII that gives the angle of view of an 896 mm. At 3 feet with a little cropping that is a "Very Closeup" of an insect.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Robert ... 896mm? ... oh, I see ... 400x1.6x1.4 ... is that how you came up with that?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Scott ... how would one do that? ... Move the entire post to the Macro Section, I mean ....

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Sigma makes a 180 macro

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Ask a moderator or the administrator to move it.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Yes, it has the Angle of View of an 896 mm on a Full Frame. But I do it 400x1.4=560 mm lens, then the 1.6 crop takes you to the same AOV you would get with an 896 mm (if there was such a beast).
And the DSLR use of 35 mm film size sensors suddenly becoming FF while the larger bodies are still Medium Format just like when they still used 120/220 film and were in the middle between 35 mm and sheet film cameras seems a bit weird if you take time to think about it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

This is one post or thread that does make sense pertty much from beginning to end including amfoto1's nicely detailed information.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

WDROSS - yes, I agree with you ... and have already thanked AMFOTO for his worthy contribution to this post ... that said - there is really only one of my Posts that has gone awry, largely because of PETERFF's insistence on making a mockery out of it.
I complained several times to the powers that be, but they refused to budge, in order to remove the rude posts, so I attempted to address him, myself - but I rather think I just made things worse. However, I have a score of posts here, and just about all of the others, make sense from the top to the bottom. However, it does take a reminder, every now and again - regarding what each post is about. I gather some come here w/o going through UHH's lead page ... which could lead to some confusion.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RobertJerl: I don't think it makes any difference whether one multiplies by the 1.6 factor for Canon APS-C sensors first, and then apply the multiplication factor for the extender afterwards, or the other way around - it'll still come out to the same thing.

Now, then ... I got a little lost with your analogy about Full Frame, Medium Frame, and Large Frame ... care to elaborate?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Ok, lens first:

Add an extender and you add elements so the lens actually changes. My 100-400 + 1.4X becomes a 140-560 lenses and on my 6D that is what it is. So then on an APS-C crop sensor you only change the AOV to the equivalent of 896 (Nikon it becomes an 840 AOV). It is still a max 560 mm lens.

Now my comment on FF vs Medium etc.
In the film days you had 35 mm (and a few other smaller films), then you had medium format using mostly 120/220 film (there were some others of aprx the same size) and above that a gaggle of sheet film cameras in larger negative sizes sometimes referred to as "large format".
Today with digital sensors instead of film suddenly 35 mm (aprx 24x36mm) becomes Full Frame. A name which implies being large or full size. And in relation to APS-C and the other even smaller sensor sizes it is. But the larger sensors, usually in bodies that look like and have the same names as the old 120/220 Medium Format cameras are still called "medium". Even though they are larger than FF.
So you have a flock of different size "crop sensor" sizes topping off at APS-C - then Full Frame at aprx 24x36 - then "Medium" format with larger sensors than FF. And a few rare more or less custom/one of a kind very large sensors mostly in scientific uses. But you won't find them in your local camera store or on-line catalog.

So, with film you had small - medium - large, now with digital you have small - full frame (big) - medium - large/bigger*

*Canon made a 202x205mm in 2010 for ???? There is the 8x10" Maxback first custom built in about 2011 for the price of house. There are others like a 9x11" I once read an article about. But mostly the extremely high MP count cameras for astronomy etc are made by mounting multiple sensors in a matrix.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Cellphones. Everyone has one. Most get in close, and, they are always in someone's pocket. They will even take pics of things that fly away.