You posted "I was walking around with mine yesterday and here are a couple of handheld shots in the wind at 400mm. They look macro and are not cropped but could easily be cropped to 1/2 life size. The flower is a bit over 1" across and I backed off a bit to get it all in so this is not minimum and the bumble bee is a well known reverence and again not 100% as close as possible as it was moving rapidly around."

As I said on the other thread, I am sure that it is just an honest mistake on your part, but we would not want to mislead people, especially not about such an expensive piece of equipment, and especially not on a thread intended to clear up any misunderstandings about that particular lens, and to answer any questions people might have about it.

A 1" subject will not fill the frame like that without cropping with that lens at minimum focusing distance.

Here is a shot of a yardstick taken with that lens at minimum focusing distance. It is easy to see that one would not need to back off to get all of a 1" subject in the frame. You would not need to back off to get all of a 4" subject in the frame.

Mike

The distinction between macro and closeup is not a value judgment, nor is the difference between micro and macro a value judgement. "Macro" does not mean "better," though it seems a lot of people take it that way. With increased magnification there are a set of specialized challenges, techniques and equipment involved, and for that reason we make a distinction. We are talking about different approaches, not better results. Macro is a different type of photography. It is different from close ups and different from micro, just as landscape photography is different from studio portrait photography. One is not better than the other, they are just different. It is useful to make these distinctions for the sake of clarity, and it is unfortunate that people take the distinctions personally, as though they were somehow being criticized or insulted when the distinctions are mentioned.

At the very least, I think that most people assume that the word "macro" when applied to photography means small subjects filling more of the frame. Of course, with any lens an image can be cropped so that a small subject fills the frame. The Canon 100-400mm lens focuses remarkably close, but I don't think you can nearly fill the frame with a dandelion flower head with that lens without cropping. There is nothing wrong with cropping, of course. Originally, I didn't notice that.

Sorry that my reply upset you. I was trying to be helpful. I hope that this clears up any confusion there may be.

You posted "I was walking around with mine yesterday and here are a couple of handheld shots in the wind at 400mm. They look macro and are not cropped but could easily be cropped to 1/2 life size. The flower is a bit over 1" across and I backed off a bit to get it all in so this is not minimum and the bumble bee is a well known reverence and again not 100% as close as possible as it was moving rapidly around."

As I said on the other thread, I am sure that it is just an honest mistake on your part, but we would not want to mislead people, especially not about such an expensive piece of equipment, and especially not on a thread intended to clear up any misunderstandings about that particular lens, and to answer any questions people might have about it.

A 1" subject will not fill the frame like that without cropping with that lens at minimum focusing distance.

Here is a shot of a yardstick taken with that lens at minimum focusing distance. It is easy to see that one would not need to back off to get all of a 1" subject in the frame. You would not need to back off to get all of a 4" subject in the frame.

Mike