Micro vs Macro vs Close up

What's the difference between these types of lenses & photography?

marketing? Macro is a reproduction ratio typically 1:1 life size ratio, Nikon calls older macro lens micro, because they were also tuned to produced Microfilm (for document storage), hence they were micro lens that were able to do 1:1 repro ratios or well Macro lens. Close up is just a slang term for essentially the same thing.

so, pay attention to the reproduction ratio, and distance away from a subject when choosing a lens, (longer focal lens can and need to be further away to acheive the 1:1 ratio).

Thanks. so essentially macro lens & micro lens are the same?
Just Nikon playing with the names?

From Wikipedia:

Macro photography (or photomacrography[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-0[/SUP] or macrography,[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-saxby-1[/SUP] and sometimes macrophotography) is extreme close-up photography, usually of very small subjects, in which the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size (though macrophotography technically refers to the art of making very large photographs).By some definitions, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater. However in other uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-photography.com_1-5[/SUP]

The ratio of the subject size on the film plane (or sensor plane) to the actual subject size is known as the reproduction ratio. Likewise, a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios greater than 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP]
Outside of technical photography and film-based processes, where the size of the image on the negative or image sensor is the subject of discussion, the finished print or on-screen image more commonly lends a photograph its macro status. For example, when producing a 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print using 135 format film or sensor, a life-size result is possible with a lens having only a 1:4 reproduction ratio.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-Olympus_1-9[/SUP][SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-STS_1-10[/SUP]

Reproduction ratios much greater than 1:1 are considered to be photomicrography, often achieved with digital microscope (photomicrography should not be confused with microphotography, the art of making very small photographs, such as for microforms).
Due to advances in sensor technology, today’s small-sensor digital cameras can rival the macro capabilities of a DSLR with a “true” macro lens, despite having a lower reproduction ratio, making macro photography more widely accessible at a lower cost.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-Frank_1-11[/SUP][SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-Cambridge_1-7[/SUP] In the digital age, a "true" macro photograph can be more practically defined as a photograph with a vertical subject height of 24 mm or less.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography#cite_note-Wattie_1-12[/SUP]

Nikon call them Micro lenses, Canon call them Macro lenses - either which way, they are dedicated 'close up' lenses (produce 1:1 ratio images)
Close up photography doesn't necessarily use a dedicated micro/macro lens, but as an example, a 70-300mm could be used for close up shots.



I'm trying to find the article I read that in, when I do, I'll post a link here.

Depends on what you mean by close up. The 70-300mm can't focus closer than 4.9 feet, and has a max reproduction ratio of .25x (1/4 life size). Compare that to the 105mm Micro at 1 foot and 1x, or the 60mm Micro at .6 foot and 1x. And that's beside their relative optical quality. The 60 and 105 are excellent quality lenses, the 70-300 not so much.

Sorry, I should clarify a little - yes the 70-300mm can't focus unless you're stood a good few feet away, but you can still get a close up image of your subject with it from a distance... if that makes more sense.

The micro lenses let you get a close up image from much closer.

Darn I need to find that article - it was so much clearer then me

With my sigma 70-300mm and the macro switch on,30" is as close as I can get.But with my Tamron 90 2.8,I'm able to get 5" away and a more macro shot. Now I'm confused.lol

Yeah.. i have noticed too in the lens i currently have, i can't get too close to the subject.. the shutter won't close.
How does the focal length matter?
i see 60 & 105mm macro lenses discussed the most, so my question (probably a stupid one)but why would you need all that distance if you going to be doing 'closue up' photography?

Don't think of a macro lens as a one trick pony. I've used my 105 as a macro lens on occasion, but I use it a lot more as a portrait lens. 105mm gives your subject a nice flattening effect, making noses look smaller AMD everything generally more pleasing. It also gives you a shallower depth of field, and a nice blur to out of focus areas behind the subject. It's not quite as convenient as my other favorite portrait lenses, but the results are amazing. I've also used it as a modest telephoto. It's about perfect for shooting small aircraft coming into my local airport.

When you do use a macro lens, one challenge is getting enough light on your subject. A shorter lens blocks the light. A longer focal length lens lets you stand a little further away and avoid creating shadows.

A longer FL also gives you extra working distance, which helps with not frightening your subject. I think the longest true macro lens is around 200mm, but they cost.

Disorderly said:

Don't think of a macro lens as a one trick pony. I've used my 105 as a macro lens on occasion, but I use it a lot more as a portrait lens. 105mm gives your subject a nice flattening effect, making noses look smaller AMD everything generally more pleasing. It also gives you a shallower depth of field, and a nice blur to out of focus areas behind the subject. It's not quite as convenient as my other favorite portrait lenses, but the results are amazing. I've also used it as a modest telephoto. It's about perfect for shooting small aircraft coming into my local airport.

When you do use a macro lens, one challenge is getting enough light on your subject. A shorter lens blocks the light. A longer focal length lens lets you stand a little further away and avoid creating shadows.

Click to expand...

The 105mm macro has become my favorite lens. It's sharp as a tack and has a nice bokeh. I use it for macro and portraits. I have the 40mm, which is also a nice lens, but not in the same league as the 105mm. The 105mm is built like a tank and you can increase magnification because it's compatible with Nikon's teleconverters.