Minimum Focus Distance

[Len Shepherd]

Take the OM-1 100-400m for example. At a MFD of 4'2" (Working distance 3'4") the result is a .57x magnification factor.

I presume you are saying on the Olympus small sensor 0.57x is a smaller subject (more magnification) than the 1:1 1x equivalent of 1.5 inches wide on an FX body.

The 1x possible with Olympus is more subject magnification - in the region of 2:1 - on 24x36 format.

 

[StefanSC]

Keep in mind that when talking about magnification, it is a property of the lens and not the sensor and 1:1 means that an object 1 cm long will create a projection 1 cm in length at the sensor plane, independent of the sensor size.

In other words, don't drink the Olympus marketing kool-aid where they multiply the magnification by 2 just because...

 

[Len Shepherd]

Keep in mind that when talking about magnification, it is a property of the lens and not the sensor and 1:1 means that an object 1 cm long will create a projection 1 cm in length at the sensor plane, independent of the sensor size.

Thanks for drawing my attention to a detail I was overlooking.

When I attach the 105 S macro to the Z8 and select one-to-one focus with a 1.5 inch wide subject, an image size of 1:1 (1.5 inches wide) is recorded in FX mode

When I switch my Z8 to DX mode the subject is cropped to a 1 inch wide subject - and the lens display continues to show 1:1 magnification - even though as you correctly point out on DX format the subject magnification is changed from 1:1 on FX to 1.5:1 on DX.

It follows that if the Nikon 105 S can be used on Olympus via an adaptor; at 1:1 focus as indicated in the lens display the further change in sensor size changes the magnification to close to 2:1

 

[StefanSC]

@Len Shepherd :

I think you missunderstood me...

What is in the lenses display window, that's your magnification.

Your 105mm will be 1:1 no matter if you use it on FF, APS-C or m43rds.

Magnification is independent of sensor size

What happens is that when you display the images at the same size, the ones from the smaller sensors are... well.. cropped.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The 100-400 specs show a .57x magnification. The small sensor has the same effect as cropping. The good news is that the resultant "crop" is 20MP on either the D-500 or OM-1.

 

[joe43]

This table might help some. It come from an excel file I made for a presentation :

Nikon Mirrorless Lenses Z mount	MFD	Weight	Price
Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens	2.5 ft	3.2 lb	$2,700​
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Lens	8.2 ft	2.7 lb	$3,250​
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S Lens	8.2 ft	6.5 lb	$14,000​
Nikon NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S Lens	14.11 ft	7.2 lb	$15,500​
Nikon NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S Lens	16.4 ft	5.2 lb	$6,500​
Nikon F mount lenses
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens	9.84 ft	3.21 lb	$3,600​
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR Lens	11.81 ft	6.81 lb	$10,300​
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens	4.59 ft	1.66 lb	$2,000​
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens	7.22 ft	6.38 lb	$5,500​
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Lens	3.28 ft	1.87 lb	$1,400​
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens	3.61 ft	3.15 lb	$2,350​

 

[MikeInMI]

I don't do macro photography but every once in a while I'm in a situation where I could use a macro lens. The 100-400 works very well given its minimum focusing distance and its magnification. Not sure if you subscribe to Mark Galer, but he did a video seminar on close up photography and went through how well all of the different lenses work for that if you aren't using a macro. The 100-400 came out very well in that analysis.

 

[Drbobcameraguy]

I am curious as to how to figure out if there is any advantage over one lens vs another when looking at different focal lengths and their minimum focusing distance.

I would like to shoot more butterflies and bees. Using a 90mm macro has its challenges as they don't tend to like you getting that close and flying away and a macro isn't the fastest focusing lens.

I have the Sony 200-600 which will focus at 600mm and 7.87' (2.4 meters). The Sony 100-400 will focus down to 3.22' (.98 meters). So if they are both used at their max focal length which one can have the subject fill the frame more? I can't decide if I want to buy the 100-400 for this purpose, it is redundant to my other gear so if it can't help in this area it isn't worth adding and spending $2,500.

I appreciate the math folks who can help out.

I personally think you are overthinking it. Just use whatever lens you want and fill the frame with the subject. It doesn't matter because both of the lenses will fill the frame at some distance. Just use either one and adjust the zoom to fill the frame from 5 feet away or so.

 

[bleirer]

Working distance can matter for some subjects. A 35mm macro that delivers .50x might not cut it when a 100mm or a 180mm macro at 1.0x would allow enough working distance.

 

[Don'sPhotoStream]

Don’t think you will find a lens much better than the Sony 100-400 for what you are photographing. After salivating over (and buying) a Z9 and the 100-400 (because I have a lot of f mount glass) I put my a1 away for awhile. Decided to take the a1 out (with the 100-400 + TC 1.4) the other day and quickly decide that I’m keeping that gear along with the 200-600… it just works !!

i did try the “old” version l Sony 70-200/2.8 and used it with the TC 1.4. It was an exceptional lens, but didn’t get me quite close enough to my subjects so I sent it back. I will probably purchase the Sony version ll of that lens in the future. The photo below was shot with the Sony 70-200/2.8 + TC 1.4

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[sh1209]

Don’t think you will find a lens much better than the Sony 100-400 for what you are photographing. After salivating over (and buying) a Z9 and the 100-400 (because I have a lot of f mount glass) I put my a1 away for awhile. Decided to take the a1 out (with the 100-400 + TC 1.4) the other day and quickly decide that I’m keeping that gear along with the 200-600… it just works !!

i did try the “old” version l Sony 70-200/2.8 and used it with the TC 1.4. It was an exceptional lens, but didn’t get me quite close enough to my subjects so I sent it back. I will probably purchase the Sony version ll of that lens in the future. The photo below was shot with the Sony 70-200/2.8 + TC 1.4 View attachment 63596

You’re exactly right. That combination is phenomenal for flowers, insects and just about anything to be honest.