Which one has a better macro ratio?

Discussion in 'General Technical Discussion' started by Jonathan F/2, May 7, 2005.

  1. 1:3.9 or 1:7.7

    The first is the Tamron 28-70 and the other Nikkor 35-70

    Thanks for an explaination.
     
  2. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  3. Easy...

    Neither. :twisted:

    Seriously, the 1:3.9 is closer to macro (1:1) then the 1:7.7. Basically those numbers represent the size of the image on the "film" compared to the actual object. In other words, in a real macro (1:1), if you placed a dime on top of a negative of a photo of a dime they would be the same size. Following that analogy, the size of the dime on the 1:3.9 negative would be about double the size of the dime on the 1:7.7 negative.

    Long story short the smaller the second number the better. :roll:

    Now I haven't even tried to figure out how or if the "magnification" factor effects this at all.
     
  4. Paul and I were typeing at the same time.

    Different ways of saying the same thing (I think) :wink:
     
  5. 1:1 means the size of the object on the sensor can be as large as the actual size of the subject. Only a true macro lens, like the Nikon 60/2.8 micro, can do this. Technically, anything less does not qualify as macro, and falls into the classification of "close-up lens", though the manufacturers may still call it a macro lens.

    1:3.9 means the size of the object on the sensor can only be 1/3.9th (or 25.6%) of the actual size of the image at best.

    1:7.7 means it can only be 1/7.7th (or 9.7%) the actual size of the subject at best.

    So the Tamron 24-75/2.8 is a much better close-up lens than the Nikon 35-70/2.8.
     
  6. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  7. Thanks, for the explaination. I was debating between these two for a portrait lens on my D2H. But since the Tamron goes to 28mm and does a better close up, I might just go Tamron. Part of me though is becoming a Nikon snob, and feel I should buy Nikon regardless! :p
     
  8. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    I hate arithmetic, so I just put the numbers on the lens like this: The first number, 1 is the size of the picture behind the lens - on the sensor, so I say it is 1 centimeter (the sensor is 1.6X2.4 cm so a circle about a centimeter in diameter makes a good subject size.)

    Then the object in front of the lens is the second number, in this case 3.9 centimeters, vs 7.7 cm. So with the 1:3.9, I'd take a picture of something about 4 cm but if the thing were 8 cm, a 1:7.7 ratio would be fine.

    For me, the trick is remembering what order the numbers are in, so I say it with the camera in front of me pointed away, and say "one" (pointing to the camera), "to three point nine" (pointing to the subject.) I dunno - the visceral part helps me keep it straight.
     
  9. Jonathan,

    I understand the Nikon snob part. I drool over some of the Nikon glass. However, I have been using Tamron lenses for a few years and they provide excellent results. The SP lenses from Tamron are especially nice. :D

    I haven't personally used either of them. However, I am seriously considering the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as a portrait lens. i am currently trying to figure out how to setup a studio in the house (with little or no expense). :wink:

    I have used some other 2nd party lenses but I don't feel as strongly about them.
     
  10. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Ilford's Ultra Large Format promotion has started for 2015 General Technical Discussion Apr 9, 2015
Will a crop sensor camera give better pics than full frame? General Technical Discussion Mar 10, 2015
My Samsung monitor has lost its brightness. General Technical Discussion May 1, 2014
Has anyone modified their tilt/shift lens? General Technical Discussion Oct 3, 2012
Has anyone sent a camera to Nikon for repair recently? General Technical Discussion Jan 5, 2012