Macro versus Micro.

[Geranium]

Can someone please explain to me the difference between a Macro lense and a micro lense. I have a 2.8 90mm 1:1 macro lense ( Tamron which i use on a Nikon 7100 camera) but i am interested in enlarging more than 1:1 .
I have looked up MICRO lenses online and they all seem to also only enlarge 1:1. What equpment do i need to enlarge tiny detail more than that.? Many thanks in expectation.

[Mike Buckley]

The terms, macro and micro, when applied to a lens mean the same thing. Some manufacturers use one term and some use the other term.

To obtain more than a 1:1 magnification produced by the lens itself, you need to simply use a lens that achieves a greater magnification. I know of this relatively inexpensive lens that has a 2:1 magnification but be aware that it does not have an automatic aperture. That means the aperture setting does not automatically revert to the largest aperture before the shutter is released. As a result, less light is allowed into the camera body, making it more difficult to frame and focus when the lens is not set to the largest aperture.

Other solutions that increase magnification: Close-up filters can be added to the front of the lens. Extension tubes can be added between the lens and camera body. Bellows can also be placed between the lens and the body and many people if not everyone uses rails when using bellows. A reversal ring placed between the lens and body allows you to invert a lens. Macro couplers allow you to use two lenses at the same time, one of them being reversed.

All of the above solutions have their own advantages and disadvantages regarding cost, weight, size, electronic communication between lens and body, and optical quality, so be sure to do some research before making any buying decisions. It might be a particularly good idea to borrow or rent equipment to determine which solutions meet your needs.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Denise,

I'll say it before any one else does - it would be easier if you shot Canon! (and I shoot Nikon)

Canon make a lens called the MPE-65 which goes all the way to 5:1 without need of extension tubes or other paraphernalia, however, you will almost certainly need to go to focus stacking to use it as the DoF is obviously 5 times thinner than at 1:1.

If you've not tried focus stacking yet, give it a go with the 1:1 lens you have.

Mike's advice is excellent, follow that too.

Can I ask what you intend to photograph?
It may make a difference to which solution is best for you; for example, if what you shoot is so tiny that you don't care about the edges of frame being soft (because it is in the centre), close up lenses may be an option, but if you do care about that, they may be less suitable than some other options.

Cheers, Dave

[xpatUSA]

I have a close-up lens accessory, the Raynox DCR250. Much less distortion than a so-called "close-up filter".

Only 8 diopter but it allows much closer focusing especially with a longer macro lens:

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/...exdcr250eg.htm
.

[rpcrowe]

The question of how to get greater than 1:1 imagery has been answered above. This is an answer to the Macro-Micro-Close Up question...

In the days of film, there was a definite ratio assigned to each type of photography:

"Close-up Photography" was basically what we call "macro" now. This was photography of a ratio up to 1:1 image to original size.

"Macro Photography" began at a 1:1 ratio and continued on to about a 5:1 ratio

"Micro Photography" was photography with a ratio of 5:1 or greater...

Things began to get muddy when manufacturers produced lenses that they called "Macro" but which could not produce images of 1:1. In fact, most of these were zoom lenses and their greatest magnification was 1:3 or even 1:4. The rationale in calling these lens "macro" was an advertising ploy based on the fact that when enlarged to 4x6 inches, the image would be about 1:1 with the original.

Companies began to produce real macro lenses some of which could produce 1:1 imagery if used alone and some of which, like the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro lens produced a native 1:2 ratio and needed an adapter to reach 1:1 capability.

Nikon began calling their 1:1 and 1:2 capable Macro lenses "Micro", I guess that was to differentiate them from the pseudo macro zoom lenses flooding the market.

So the Nikon Micro and the Canon and Tamron Macro lenses really have the same capability. Their names were just the choice of the respective manufacturers.

[Dave Humphries]

Great summary Richard

[DanK]

What equpment do i need to enlarge tiny detail more than that.?

It really depends on how much magnification you want. The baseline is in many ways 1:1 because that is the maximum magnification of most macro lenses, including Nikon's "micro" lenses. If you want between 1:1 and approximately 2:1, the simplest option in my opinion would be a set of Kenko extension tubes. The normal formula for magnification from extension doesn't work at the minimum focusing distance of 1:1 macro lenses, but the greater the ratio of extension length to focal length, the greater the magnification. With a 90mm lens and a full set (68mm) of the Kenko tubes, you should be able to get at least close to 2:1.

If you want more than 2:1, things get harder. As Dave said, the most common option among people I know who want more than 2:1 is the Canon MP-E 65, but it is a very hard lens to use.

[rpcrowe]

Another quite unusual way to get a bit larger image is to add a tele-extender to a macro lens. With my 90mm Tamron, I would need to add an additional extension tube between the macro lens and the extender to enable it to physically fit.

Although I have a 90mm Tamron Marco and both a Canon 1.4x TC and a 25mm extension tube, I have never had the requirement or the curiosity to combine all three, so I cannot in all honesty give any indication of the resulting image quality...

[James G]

Richard's summary is excellent

Canon make a lens called the MPE-65 which goes all the way to 5:1 without need of extension tubes or other paraphernalia, however, you will almost certainly need to go to focus stacking to use it as the DoF is obviously 5 times thinner than at 1:1.

Further to Dave's comment above, it might be worth reading the thread below. In particular there is a discussion about the MPE-65 which is definitely a 'one of a type' lens.

Researching Macro lenses. Feedback on use in the field requested

I also agree with Dave that what you intend to photograph and where, eg; in the field, static on a rig, etc is quite important when deciding on specific lenses.

I shoot insect macro predominantly outdoors and use two lenses depending on the type of insect I'm after. Specifically the Canon 100mm IS macro lens and where getting too close can 'spook' the subject, the Canon 180mm macro lens. Both are 1:1 lenses and generally sufficient for my needs.

I'm not sure what you are defining as 'tiny' detail, but compound eye detail, and scale detail on a butterfly wing are both relatively easily achievable using the lenses above.

On occasion I have added extension tubes to the 100mm to photograph subjects like spider mites which are less than 1mm in size. I have to be honest and say that I am still not satisfied with my technique, but I doubt using a 2:1 macro lens would be any better than the extension tubes at present.

[rpcrowe]

There is a slight shortfall when using the Canon MPE-65 lens. You cannot focus at any less ratio (further distance) than a 1:1 image. So it is definitely a specialty lens...