Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:37:21 -0800 John Whittingham wrote: > > So, I am still a bit confused, why the lens is not called "macro"? > > Because it is macro only @70mm? > > A true Macro lens would be capable of a 1:1 life size or greater (on the film > negative) magnification and be genuine Macro, the 70-210 manages one quarter > of life size 1:4 and thus has a close focus ability (pseudo Macro) > Some Macro lenses such as SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/4 require the addition of a > extension tube (#3 IIRC) to achieve true Macro > > > The KMP site does not list this lens as having a macro capability > > Many magnification ratios are listed for the lenses including the 70-210 @ 1:4 > > Hope this helps, best regards, > > John >
Yes, this makes it clearer. Thank you! So, when Tamron or Sigma lenses are called "macro", but have a reproduction ratio of 1:2 (say Tamron 70-300) or 1:2.9 (Sigma 28/1.8, Tamron 28-300/3.5-5.6), - this is a frivolous use of the term. They should've been called "close focus capable". Correct? I just found a similar definition in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography It suggests that recently the term "macro" became used if the 4"x6" (~10cmx15cm) print has at least 1:1 size of the object. That might be explaining the loose usage of the word "macro" by some manufacturers. Thank
