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?
1972257
I for one hope that someday the industry really clarifies this misnomer. The FOV makes the picture look closer, when in fact, the magnification in the same as 35 MM standards. Many companies think the public is stupid and doesn't know any better, so they buy a specific lens because they think they are getting more magnification...
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.
1610125
No- the focusing distance is much too far. Great lens- but not for macro work.
2110561
I have this problem But I don't understand your solution, Bruce. Could you or someone explain it again please? You appear to be saying that if the camera is at something like a standard focal length you can choose both Macro and MF. But you can't - not on mine anyway! In my experience, the camera will not focus below 1ft. The image stays blurred and often the yellow central focus frame will display a question mark. Auto-focus does not work in Macro either - so to all practical purposes the camera has no Macro mode. If someone has a fix for this I'd be very interested.
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.
304859
No. This lens has a magnification factor of .31. True macro lenses have a magnification of 1X (meaning the object is actual size on the surface of the sensor) or more. I'm not sure how small your intended subjects are but a macro lens might not be powerful enough to reveal truly microscopic details, i.e., great for insects, not so helpful for cellular structure.
1845477
It can focus pretty close at all focal lengths, but it doesn't have a formal "macro" position. There's a discussion of this on cameralabs site, see the review of this lens. He claims a magnification ratio of 1:2.6 is possible. I haven't measured it myself, but it is a good lens for closeups.
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.
1249481
Yeah, Diverhank nailed it - two very different lenses. Important to note that the 50mm 1.4 is NOT a macro lens and that was something you mentioned in your initial post. I used the 50mm on my T2i and absolutely loved it, though I eventually upgraded (and much preferred) the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the "normal" focal length on the crop-sensor. I now shoot a full frame and primarily use the 50mm but will likely get the 100mm shortly. Be sure to take a look at the Sigma 30mm before buying the 50mm Canon but if Macro is what you're looking for, you can't go wrong with the 100mm L.
19871
Hi Michael, for some reason I've returned this item...Not because of having any trouble! I've decided to but real macro lens instead of using something like that just because of quality of the image with the Nikon macro lenses. Sorry
933401
Many lenses are described as having "macro" capabilities, but this only refers to their close-focus distance and magnification. A true macro has 1:1 magnification; the 35-70 was 1:5.6, and the 24-70 is a little better at 1:3.7, but neither are true macros.
1364323
Assuming you are referring to the equivalent when used on a DX body, and that you want to use this lens on a DX body, such as the D7000, the crop factor is actually 1.5. So that means 14x1.5= 21. Thus when compared to a 35mm (FX) sensor this lens works similarly to a 21mm lens.
2271632
The Tamron 60mm macro lens absolutely can be used with Nikon DX sensor cameras. I used it on my D80 and now my D7000. Awesome lens, I definately recommend you add it to your lens kit.
1427352
The minimum focus distance for the 135mm is 3 feet, and I don't know if you add anything more to that with the 1.4x on it, but at any rate 3 feet is too far away for macro. You'll get very close shots, sure, but it's just impractical for macro. You'd be better off with a dedicated macro lens like the 100mm/2.8.
2236128
DX describes the crop that most digital SLRs have because their sensor is smaller than a piece of 35mm film. It is roughly 1.6x smaller. "Effective focal length" describes this difference for any particular lens focal length. FX is used to describe a digital SLR camera that has a sensor roughly the same size as a 35mm piece of film. DX and SX are also used to describe lenses, because some only make a circle of light large enough to cover a DX camera's small sensor. This makes the lenses lighter, cheaper, and has no disadvantage with a DX camera, but they don't cover a FX sensor.
271246
No, the 2.2x does not work well for macro. The wide-angle lens works for macro with the included adapter. The wide-angle less uses part of the lens.
553363
I have the D7000. I find that the lens works very well but you do have the "crop" situation since it's not a DX specific lens. I guess it gives you an effective focal length of about 85mm. It is a very good lens. I used it for general photography at a party recently on my D750. Got some great pictures.
870594
No. Macro is for taking real close-up pictures! None of these are zoom lens.