I'm looking for a macro lens. I have 28-105mm Nikkor which gives me "1:2 Magnification Ratio" (whatever that means). I found another lens, Tamron 90mm Macro, which has magnification ratio of 1:1.

Would the Tamron 90mm give me a more close-up shot than my Nikkor? I guess I don't understand what the 1:1 or 1:2 numbers mean.


1 Answer 1


1:2 means the image projected on sensor (or film) is up to half the size of real subject; 1:1 means it's up to exactly the same size as the real subject. So yes, 1:1 means you can take a more close-up shot. The ratio in technical specifications means the maximum magnification, you can magnify less by focusing from further away (or zooming out, if the lens is a zoom).

Approximate minimum size of subject that you can fill a frame with (using minimal focusing distance for the lens, and longest focal length for a zoom lens):

  • magnification ratio 1:1 - 24 x 36 mm on full-frame, 16 x 24 mm on APS-C
  • magnification ratio 1:2 - 48 x 72 mm on full-frame, 32 x 48 mm on APS-C

You can get even higher magnification by adding bellows or extension tube(s) between your camera and lens.

A serious macro shooter may want to consider a Canon system, because they have the MP-E65 lens with insane 5:1 ratio - subject is magnified 5 times compared to its real-life size.

The greater the magnification ratio you use, the thinner will be your depth of field.

As @jrista commented, many people consider only 1:1 or higher magnification lenses to be true macro lenses, while marketers will happily stick "macro" on any lens that will focus closer than lenses of similar focal length usually do.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It should probably also be noted that "true" macro requires at least 1:1 magnification. A lens with 1:2 magnification can take close-up shots, but they are not truly macro shots, in which the scene is projected life-size onto the sensor. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 16:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @jrista I doubt there is any "official" definition of "macro", but yes, such line is drawn quite often; added a note on that. \$\endgroup\$
    – Imre
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 16:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @jrista - I second @Imre on that. A 1:1.1 is just as a macro as 1:1. \$\endgroup\$
    – ysap
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 18:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ The definition of a macro lens is one that produces a life-size or larger image on the sensor (or film), with a minimum of 1:1 projection. As such, 1:1.1 would NOT qualify, although it would qualify as a close-up lens. The term macroscopic refers to things that can be seen by the naked eye...or "life size" elements of the world, vs. microscopic or smaller than life size. Ref: bing.com/Dictionary/… \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 20:01
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The reason I tend to be a stickler on the point is that to a new buyer who gets into a discussion with an experienced macro photographer an hears that "macro" means "life size", then goes out and buys one of the third-party "macro" lenses that only focus to 1:2, are kind of getting shafted. Nikon and Canon are pretty clear that their macro lenses are full 1:1 magnification, but other manufacturers are sketchy on the point, and they use the term as a marketing ploy rather than as a proper description of the lens. I think new buyers should, ad the very least, be ware. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 21:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.