How would you define Macro?

[Meta menardi]

I have just got a Sigma lens (70-300mm 1:4-5.6) with a switch that lets you go to (their figures) 1:2. I know what I have bought and I am very happy with it, the price is excellent and I am starting to get results that I am happier with than anything I got from the kit lens (I know what I like to photo, and the kit lens didn't always do it).

So I guess my question is, is 1:2 macro? I have always thought in terms of 1:1 or more.

Also, does anyone else have this lens, and have you any thoughts about it if you do?

[eeyore]

techincally macro is 1:1 - 10:1 anything over that is micro , while those that give less than life size are technically close up rather than true macro

that said some 1:2 "macro" lenses are pretty good.

howevver in my experience the macro/close up capability of these jack of all zooms is pretty poor in most situations being closer to 1:4

you'd be better off with a f1.8 50mm (80 notes new - arround 30 s/h) and a set of extension tubes (from arround 50 notes)

that said as you've already got the zoom you may as well try it and see - if you cant get close enough you can always put a couple of tubes on the back - or a close up lens (actually a filter) or two on the front.

[mh68]

It seems nowadays that the term "macro" is used for anything from Aphids to Flowers and fungi, but I was always led to believe it was 1:1 or greater too.
I`ve used the Sigma 70-300 macro and it isnt too bad - a little noisy when focussing but reasonably sharp. If you want to get closer to 1:1 without spending a fortune, one of the Raynox dcr clip-on macro lenses works quite well on the 70-300(get them for about £30 from Ebay)....not as good as a true macro lens but acceptable...this pic below was taken with that setup...



Mark H

[The Black Rabbit]

How would I define "macro".
Without going into figures and jargon -
"Something tiny, that the naked eye cannot fully appreciate".

Well.
Thats my take.

TBR

[Meta menardi]

Thanks for those two answers, I am treading softly (small budget, slow brain). What I have got is better than what I had, I want to master that, then move on. Your answers confirm what I had thought about the definition of macro. I think a great deal of the pleasure of this is getting it sorted in your mind and seeing what you can improve.

[Meta menardi]

Again, thanks BR, I have used a Nikon 4500 for quite a few years and it does do what you say, and I think it will always be my carry everywhere camera. I like it so much that I recently bought a second one, in case the first one goes pop (price was about .25 of the first one I bought). now I have bought a Pentax 200D and added the lens I mentioned, it is rather intimidating me. I have decided to define what I am doing as either going for a walk (take the Nikon), or going out to take photos (take DSLR). The only problem is, I can't make decisions, so I take both, and the digital video, and the binoculars, and the tripod, and the monopod, and the spotting scope, and Grandfathers Ross Ensign 1/4 plate film camera, and the telescope, and the prismatic compass, and the brass-bound insect proof chest. And I can't carry them more than 5 metres, 'cos we are surveying, so you have the Lumpy Devil, then we are putting in new dip-wells, so there is the auger, the dipwells, the covers...

If I said I could go on, is there anyone here who could doubt it?

Think I will take the Nikon.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Meta menardi

Again, thanks BR, I have used a Nikon 4500 for quite a few years and it does do what you say, and I think it will always be my carry everywhere camera. I like it so much that I recently bought a second one, in case the first one goes pop (price was about .25 of the first one I bought). now I have bought a Pentax 200D and added the lens I mentioned, it is rather intimidating me. I have decided to define what I am doing as either going for a walk (take the Nikon), or going out to take photos (take DSLR). The only problem is, I can't make decisions, so I take both, and the digital video, and the binoculars, and the tripod, and the monopod, and the spotting scope, and Grandfathers Ross Ensign 1/4 plate film camera, and the telescope, and the prismatic compass, and the brass-bound insect proof chest. And I can't carry them more than 5 metres, 'cos we are surveying, so you have the Lumpy Devil, then we are putting in new dip-wells, so there is the auger, the dipwells, the covers...

If I said I could go on, is there anyone here who could doubt it?

Think I will take the Nikon.

Just read this thread again - seems like you were after figures etc... sorry!
And BLIMEY you don't half have a lot of kit eh?!
Cheers
TBR

[RobinP]

Originally Posted by Meta menardi

ISo I guess my question is, is 1:2 macro? I have always thought in terms of 1:1 or more.

Also, does anyone else have this lens, and have you any thoughts about it if you do?

I always think of macro as being 'larger than life-size' so if 1:2 means twice life-size then yes, it is macro.

I also have a Sigma 70-300, the APO HSM version for Nikon but I haven't had the chance to give it a good try-out yet but it seems to be a very good lens.

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

Just read this thread again - seems like you were after figures etc... sorry!
And BLIMEY you don't half have a lot of kit eh?!
Cheers
TBR

The list of kit includes almost a lifetime list, much has gone, replaced by something else. I quite like your definition, even though it is not numeric.

[richardkm]

macro is actually anything larger than one quarter life size.