Macro discussion: I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ......

Paul Brannon Loc: Coolidge, Arizona

I am novice to many others here. But, I too experience the same, and try my darnedest to use a tripod, when ever possible, age benefits making their contributions. My problems, with macro, is not getting the whole subject in focus, other than the immediate area I focus on. Just need more studying on the objective.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

Paul Brannon wrote:

I am novice to many others here. But, I too experience the same, and try my darnedest to use a tripod, when ever possible, age benefits making their contributions. My problems, with macro, is not getting the whole subject in focus, other than the immediate area I focus on. Just need more studying on the objective.

Maximum depth of field would help; but in many, many cases, the art is frequently in getting only a part of the subject, anyway.

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

Larry, I might also be losing my mind, at first I was gonna disagree with you as 1/1 is 1/1. But 1/1 at 3 inches is way steadier than 1/1 at 20 feet (to grossly exaggerate).
So I think you are right.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

BassmanBruce wrote:

Larry, I might also be losing my mind, at first I was gonna disagree with you as 1/1 is 1/1. But 1/1 at 3 inches is way steadier than 1/1 at 20 feet (to grossly exaggerate).
So I think you are right.

Those were my thoughts also

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

imagemeister wrote:

I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ......

I believe you are correct. First started out with a Nikon micro 55 decades ago. Then a micro 105. Then a micro 200. I learned the further you go up in fl the more stability you need although the working distance becomes nice as you go up in fl. As an extreme example when I mount my ancient Nikon 800 you wil notice if you breath near it you can see the wobbles through the viewfinder. I think you’re on the right track.

gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

The macrophotography forum has some great photographers. IF you post this question there, I'm sure you'll get some excellent feedback.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

BassmanBruce wrote:

Larry, I might also be losing my mind, at first I was gonna disagree with you as 1/1 is 1/1. But 1/1 at 3 inches is way steadier than 1/1 at 20 feet (to grossly exaggerate).
So I think you are right.

Good point!

Largobob

Larry, I may be losing my mind too...or perhaps I don't understand your premise?

The greater (longer) the focal length of a lens; the greater the image is magnified on the sensor; there is a decreased/narrower field of view; there is a shallower depth of field at a given aperture and focal distance; and instability/motion (blur) is more obvious in the image...

So with your example, your 60mm macro should be expected to exhibit less motion blur than your 100mm macro. That is one reason why wide-angle lenses seem to produce exceptionally sharp images with great depth of field.

IMHO, VR is much less necessary on a wider angle lens than on a greater focal length lens.

Example: I can hand-hold my 24-70mm without VR producing excellent images all day long.....not so much with my 200-500 handheld with VR off.

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

imagemeister wrote:

I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ......

Magnification, not focal length, determines how much blur you'll get. At 1:2, it doesn't matter if you are using a 60mm lens or a 200mm lens. The image will be the same size on the sensor, and camera movement will be equally magnified.
This link seems to support this in point #4:

https://www.lightstalking.com/camera-shake-what-causes-it-and-how-to-eliminate-it-for-good/

And this article indirectly supports image magnification as a reliable predictor of motion blur from camera movement:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/08/how-to-get-sharp-telephoto-images/

"The severity of blur for a given vibration is proportional to the focal length of the lens.
Let’s say when I handhold a camera I get a tiny bit of motion at the front of my lens, maybe moving the camera 0.1 degree of arc during the time the shutter is exposing (this would be pretty good actually). If I’m shooting a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, the field-of-view of my image is 39 degrees, so I would blur the image about 0.1 / 39, or .02%—a very small amount. If I blur the image the same amount (0.1 degree of arc) with a 500mm lens, which has a field of view of 4 degrees, I would blur the image 2.5%. So for the same amount of motion while handholding, the 500mm image would appear to be blurred more than 10 times as much as a 50mm lens. (As is usual when I write, there’s a ton of math and physics left out. What I said here is a pretty accurate illustration that ignores about half a page of trigonometry.)"

When hand holding at short working distances and high magnification, I think (but can't confirm) there will be another component of camera motion induced blur when shooting at short distances with short focal lengths - moving forward and backward can cause a focus induced softness.

Don't argue with me - send your disagreements to the authors of the articles I linked to.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

imagemeister wrote:

I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ......

I think the later.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

imagemeister wrote:

I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ......

With macro magnification is more of an issue than focal length with the close working distances. So 1:1 life size with either a 60mm or 100mm will require the camera/lens to be steadied with a fast enough shutter speed, or IBIS/VR/VC/OIS, or a tripod with remote release, or flash...the only real differences will be the working distance and DOF. The 60 will provide slightly more DOF but you will have to get closer to the subject, which can be an issue with small animals/insects and/or lighting - often ring lights or ring flashes are used which can help fix any blurring issues. I have the Tamron 90mm with VC and can take very sharp handheld close to 1:1 shots in normal daylight/sunlight with the VC on.

Years ago when I had an Olympus OM system - which I spent a lot of GAS money on - I had the 20mm macro/micro lens with bellows - this allowed for greater than 1:1 life size magnification (I think up to 4-6x) though the FL was only 20mm, vibration was an issue due to high magnification.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Largobob wrote:

The greater (longer) the focal length of a lens; the greater the image is magnified on the sensor; there is a decreased/narrower field of view; there is a shallower depth of field at a given aperture and focal distance ...

Depth of field at a given magnification ratio and aperture will be the same, regardless of the lens’ focal length.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

chrisg-optical wrote:

The 60 will provide slightly more DOF...

Not so. See my statement above.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

It’s like a beam of light from a flashlight. It covers a greater area the farther it is from the surface it’s projected upon. So an aberration from shake has a larger effect at a greater distance from the sensor to the subject. Or something like that. 🥴🥴