Macro with dSLR: When using this lens on a digital SLR do you get more magnification or more focal length due to the 1.5x image sensor?
1449308
No you dont. The term 'focal length multiplier', and I am assuming you are referring to this number, does nothing to your focal length. It is a horrible term. It is your FOV (field of view) that changes.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1915107
Yes! You screw it off completely! It shows up blurry if you're trying to take normal pictures, but when you angle the camera close to something, its supposed to focus and look zoomed in! Keep trying, or look up info about macro lenses!
1610125
No- the focusing distance is much too far. Great lens- but not for macro work.
201532
I do not have a full frame camera sensor. My Zoom goes to 35mm equivalent of 375 mm however. At full zoom, I still have a reasonable focal length (for macro that is) of a half inch or so. I have to shoot about 40 inches away from a subject to be able to focus (which is actually good for living things that might scare getting in too close). The EF 25 might have a very narrow FOV, so I chose the 12 mm extension tube instead and am happy with it.
2236256
It is rated as 1:3 of magnification at 55mm. I think that is just fine for some macro, but of course it is not like a 1:1. But anyway, is supposed that anything between 1:5 and 1:1 can be considered macro.
2031864
I bought it to put on my 52mm because it is a 58mm MACRO lens which gives you the best in a short distance shot that you want at least 180 degree view, which you can do with a bit of manual adjustment to your digital. Disclaimer: I am not a professional photographer, but I want to be so I READ! You can take certified tests and actually become someone that can be a consultant but not a professional photographer, a consultant regarding equipment, quantity, what fits what, and how to avoid buying cheap things that do not fit. I just bought the MACRO and put it on a Canon Digital REBEL and it fit fine. Write me back and I will send you pictures taken with 52MM and the same picture taken with a 58MM MACRO fit on to a 52MM, okay? Thanks for the question. I enjoy photography but as I stated, I'm only an enthusiast who reads and experiments which is maybe a great way to learn to be a "consultant" on expensive, collectible equipment for various manufacturers of the digital era, now!
1359668
I figured it out. The lens can not be zoomed in to have full control over the manual focus. When zoomed out to a normal range, the manual focus will fully function, as well as macro, it seems.
604836
My advice is to go to DPReview, which is an excellent resource for looking at digital cameras. That is where I get my info. My lens will focus only to ~ 8", so I'm guessing that the macro lens can get closer. Enjoy - it's an awesome camera!
567401
No, the 24-105L is not a macro lens. It can focus relatively close -- but the maximum magnification is only .23 times life-size. For macro, the standard with recent lenses has been a magnification of .5 times or greater.
710297
No. And it's minimum focusing distance is not get good. If you want a good and sharp macro lens your going to have to go with a single focal length. Like the tamron 90mm macro lens. Super sharp and can focus on thing only inches from the lens.
372803
Yes, the lens does very good macro photos, to get 1:1 aspect the distance is about 6 inches, I also recomend tu use a flash ring to avoid thshadows in some shots. The lens is great, works very good on macro and casual shooting with a very good f2.8 stop.
505749
I also have not seen this reference in any printed material. All true macros should have this. I have been satisfied with the image quality. My only problem is on auto focus. If the focus has to search and cannot lock focus it falls back to infinity focus even if the close limit is chosen. Otherwise it is a fine lens.
14464
Macro lenses can be used for standard photography. If you use one to take a distant object, that object is not a 1:1 size with your captured image. Macro capability means that you can move the lends in close enough so that the captured image is the same size as the object being photographed. Non-macro lenses do not allow you to get in that close and still be able to focus on the object.
1368481
Since you'll be using this in a Nikon 1, the focal length of your lens will have a 2.5x magnification which is the multiplier factor for Nikon 1 cameras. Meaning, a 35 mm on a regular film SLR will be 87.5 mm for Nikon 1 when the FT-1 mount is used.
1588420
To J.D. who asked: "why not just buy the 2x since they are the same price?"There is at least two reasons: 1). 2x will degrade the sharpness significantly more then the 1.4x. So if 1.4 is enough, then it is better. 2). It will make the minimum appeature go down by 2 stops. So if you start with a 180mm F3.5 macro, you will end up with 360mm, F7.1. Many cameras can not focus beyond F5.6, so only manual focus at that point. It also becomes a much "darker" lens. Where as the 1.4x will only bring it down by 1 stop to about 260mm, F5.0.Good luck.
2156713
Not really... It has a minimum focal length of 13 inches zoomed out and about 8 feet when zoomed all the way in. As far as a true macro lens goes, I would I use the Tamron 90 mm macro. In addition if you use the +1, +2, +4, +10 close-up lenses, you can get really really close.