Canon lenses: which non-macro lenses come the nearest to macro?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Alan F Cross, Jan 14, 2004.

  1. Alan F Cross

    Alan F Cross Guest

    Is there a resource that indicated the maximum (or is it minimum?) repro
    ratio for Canon EF lenses?

    I'm looking for a prime EF lens to complement my zooms, and would like
    to come as close to macro as possible with my choice (without
    necessarily buying a macro lens as such). Perhaps my zooms come closest
    to my needs, but I don't have the information to prove it.

    Is there a comparative table on the web with such information?
    Unfortunately the Canon site does not provide this information.

    TIA.
     
    Alan F Cross, Jan 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. AnOvercomer02, Jan 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan F Cross

    Olaf Ulrich Guest

    'Close to macro' in which regard? Magnification, or
    image quality at close distance?

    If you need best image quality at moderate magnifi-
    cation (like, say, 1:10 to 1:3) then a standard lens
    or a short telephoto lens---e. g. EF 50 mm 1:1.8 or
    EF 85 mm 1:1.8---in conjunction with one or two
    achromatic close-up lenses (Canon 500D & 250D)
    would yield near-perfect results. However, you
    won't get up to 1:1 magnification with this set-up.

    Olaf
     
    Olaf Ulrich, Jan 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Alan F Cross

    Alan F Cross Guest

    Well, I've looked again at your reference (I had already looked there)
    and cannot find 'magnification ratio' for any except those designated as
    macro.

    Am I missing a reference on this site?
     
    Alan F Cross, Jan 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Group: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 3:50pm (CST+6)
    From: (Alan F Cross)

    Well, I've looked again at your reference (I had already looked there)
    and cannot find 'magnification ratio' for any except those designated as
    macro.
    Am I missing a reference on this site?
    --
    Alan F Cross
    ==================================

    I thought you were looking for minimum focus distance. Here's what I
    found in my litiature.

    Max. magnifacation (x)
    EF 50 1.4 0.15
    50 1.8 0.15
    85 1.2L 0.11
    85 1.8 0.13
    100 2.0 0.14
    135 2.0L 0.19
    135 2.8 0.12
    200 1.8L 0.09
    200 2.8 0.16

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer02, Jan 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Alan F Cross

    Alan Justice Guest

    I calculated minimuym field size a few years ago for many lenses and found
    that they were all pretty close (wide angle to telephoto). If you want 1:1,
    use extenstion on a short lens. 24 mm extension on a 24 mm lens gets you
    there, or 50 on a 50. Some lenses have some "built in extension." I think
    the results are better than by adding another piece of glass (close-up
    attachments).
     
    Alan Justice, Jan 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Alan F Cross

    Olaf Ulrich Guest

    That's right, but the image quality will be, ummm,
    usable but not really good.


    This is a common misconception.

    Olaf
     
    Olaf Ulrich, Jan 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Alan F Cross

    fruitbat Guest

    It's there.

    The "Maximum Magnification" is what you want. It's in the tables and
    listed for every lens, I believe. For example, the EF 85/1.8 is listed
    as 0.13x. To find the spec for the magnification with extension tubes
    attached, click on the lens picture and then click the "Accessories"
    link at the bottom of the window that opens.

    Note that I've tested all of the lenses I own (which is not very many
    right now) and the only one that didn't match Canon's specs was the
    EF-S 18-55. I was able to focus down to 0.36x, which is a little
    better than the 0.28x that's listed by Canon... If you want to test
    your own lenses, just take a picture of a ruler. Use maximum focal
    length, and position the camera as close as you possibly can with the
    image still in-focus (use manual focus and a tripod for best results).
    Frame the ruler so it's perfectly horizontal. Note the actual width of
    your sensor/film frame and divide that by the length of the ruler that
    appears in the picture. Voila...

    Jeff
     
    fruitbat, Jan 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Alan F Cross

    brougham5 Guest

    Why not?
     
    brougham5, Jan 15, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.