Re: "Super" macro...Andy?

[Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx>]

Isn't a true "macro" lens also a "flat field lens"?  I was taught that a true macro was capable of maintaining focus across a flat object like a postage stamp or a photograph or anything  else that is flat.   So a macro lens is different than a macro focusing lens.  At least that what I was taught.....

Bob

On 9/13/2010 6:25 AM, Mark Lent wrote:

Hello all,

I am just kinda jumping into this conversation, but was reading what Dan
wrote below and am wondering if there's an operational definition of what
"macro" truly is in this thread... True "macro" isn't measured by the
distance from subject to lens, but rather how large the object is produced
on the film or sensor in comparison to real life. So, if the lens maker
states that the macro is 1:4, it means that the object is 1/4 life sized on
the sensor. So, 1:1 is life-sized (where the object is as big on the sensor
as it is in real-life...)and is "true" macro. If the object is larger than
real-life ("super" macro, I suppose...), say 2:1, it becomes micro.

If you want a greater magnification, a good macro lens (such as Nikon's
105mm "Micro") will do a great job and allows true 1:1 imaging. Beyond this,
a good set of extension tubes will work nicely to give you even greater
magnification.

Hope this helps a bit and that all of you have a great day!

Mark Len