Don't need a macro lens, that's an awesome portrait lens that can do close up macro very useful for babies, 1:1 is good but not a must, Canon 50mmf2.5 macro has only 1:2 if Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the magnification would be even better
If Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the FOV will be much more narrow and you are not talking about a "85mm lens" in FF context anymore.
If Canon decides to launch a 1.6x TC, the same.
If Canon launches an extension tube set, you can reach the 1:1 magnification in 85mm in FF context.
Almost all macro lenses from the 1960s/70's/80's were 1:2 macro lenses, usually with an 1:1 extension tube or mixed TC + extension tube thing, like the Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro and its dedicated "life size converter".
Macro photography has been "defined" as photography within the 10:1 to 1:1 range. Since the magnification is defined on the projected image plane, it is a pretty useless definition. It says nothing about the size of the subject in the resulting photographs (this is sensor/film size dependent).
04-09-2020, 08:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2020, 08:16 AM by toni-a.)
1:1 is a domination from film era that says size of the subject on the slide/film is same as the size of the actual subject