decoonass Loc: San Antonio

I had thought that in order to be a macro lens, it had to be a 1:1.
This lens is advertised as a macro at 1:3.
What do you think ?

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lp/never-miss-a-moment?link=Mar-M-18-300&utm_source=Sigma+Corp+of+America&utm_campaign=3a45341928-SigmaPhoto_Newsletter_May_MomsDay_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34bfa8ccd3-3a45341928-51140081

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The term "macro" has a nebulous meaning in photography. Some people insist it means at least 1:1 magnification. But most "macro" lenses ever sold only went up to 1:2 until recently, and with zoom lenses most with that label only go to 1:4.

Personally I wouldn't think that any zoom with more than a 3x range of focal lengths would be worth using as a macro. There are too many compromises necessary with that kind of a zoom range.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Definitely. Technically, a macro is 1:1, so selling it later as a macro could be a challenge. Technically, it's just a technicality, though. You can still get amazing shots at 1:3, and cropping is still legal.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

If you are interested in true Macro-Photography, drop by the UHH True Macro-Photography Forum at
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

Bob Boner

If you want macro images I would get a true macro lens. I recommend the longer focal lengths so you have more working room when focusing up close. The Sigma 150mm has an excellent reputation, but I haven't used it. The most useful I have owned are the Nikon 200mm and Canon 180mm.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Macro is often used as a marketing term it seems. My Canon EF 24-70 f/4 L has a "Macro" feature that is really better described as "close-up" then macro. A handy feature at times, but not what most people would consider a true macro ability.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I have been looking at this lens as a replacement to my 70-300 as a "walk around " lens mostly nature barns,birds, grand kids, flowers, neighbors bedroom, clouds etc.
should I avoid "Macro" ?

bparr1 Loc: Carthage, TN

I recently watched a Creative Live class on macro photography with, Frans Lanting, as the teacher. What he was using was a zoom lens with a tele converter. I tried this with a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8, a 2x tele converter on a tripod. It worked quite well.

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

One thing not mentioned to this point is that a "true" macro lens is a "flat field" design. Most "macro" zooms are simply closer focusing and with a curvature of the lens (meaning not as sharp at the edges of the frame. There have only been a very few true "flat field macro zoom" lenses made. One was an AF lens by Nikon, another was an older Vivitar MF model (only went to 1/2 life size though. There may have been a few more obscure German designs, but I don't know for sure. Many people are satisfied with the close focusing zooms as they tend to keep their subject centered (and thus in the sharpest area of the frame) Should they try to get ,say the eye facets of a fly, they likely won't succeed as the lens cannot focus that close. I saw a portion of that webinar from Creative as well & he was shooting more "close up" imagery as opposed to "true macro"

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A true macro IMO is 1:1, such as Nikon's prime 60mm, 2.8D. This lens can be used outside of macro too.

bparr1 Loc: Carthage, TN

I see what you're saying about the close up as opposed to macro. Seems I was mislead. One lives and learns, I suppose.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I wouldn't expect much from a 16X zoom... in any respect. That's just trying to do too much with a single lens.

Zoom lens manufacturers love to apply the "macro" label liberally, even though their lenses are far from it. Actually, 1:3, if that's what this lens offers, is better than most zooms achieve. Still I wouldn't expect all that good image quality.

There really is no hard and fast definition of "macro", as it applies to lenses. 1:1, certainly is macro. But a lot of 1:2 macro lenses have been offered over the years, too. Some call it "micro", too... or reserve that for those rarer lenses with greater than 1:1 capabilities. Personally, I think of a lens that's able to do 1:2 as "macro capable".... anything less than that might be "close-up capable"... in the 1:3 or 1:4 range.

I agree that you'd be better off with a true macro lens, if that's what interests you. And, in nearly all cases that means a prime lens rather than a zoom.

I disagree about getting longer focal lengths. For general purpose I'd recommend keeping to the range from 60mm to about 105mm. Any longer focal length than that makes it difficult to get a steady shot. Any shorter puts you awfully close to your subject. Both longer and shorter are more specialized lenses.

For general purpose, especially for a first macro lens... I'd suggest you get a focal length in between those extremes. A 60mm on a crop sensor (DX) camera can be a fairly compact option, while a 90 to 105mm is larger but gives you a bit more working distance. I'd also go with a 90-105mm for a full frame (FX) camera (which yours apparently isn't, since you're considering an 18-300mm "crop only" lens).

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I think 1:3 is pretty darn good for an 18-300 - why not try it ???

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

Scott, thanks for saying what needed to be said. Shame on the manufacturers for not properly marking the lenses "close-up" instead of "macro." :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

It's a close-up lens