Maximum Magnification - different for EF lenses on crop bodies?

[HDNitehawk]

It may thus seem that crop cameras are better for extreme macro, but I don't find this to be the case: you can always crop a larger sensor, and usually it is diffraction rather than pixel density that limits resolution when you go way beyond 1x.

Jon, this is how I have thought to. I would prefer the 5D II over the crop body.


tkerr's statement that the"1.6 x 100mm = 160mm, a 100mm lens on a crop body is equal to a 160mm lens on a FF Body", isn't entirely accurate. I know he was referring to crop size.


A 100mm on a 1.6 will have a DOF greater by almost 1.6 than a 160mm would have on a full frame body at the same apertures.


Lately thoughDenise has been posting macros that appear to have a fairly deep DOF, I believe using her new 70mm.


It makes me wonder if there is a benefit to shorter focal lengths using crop bodies for macro, just to get the deeper DOF at equal crop sizes.


Otherwise to the original OP's questions, it sounds like so far the consensus is that the crop does not affect the mm.

[Jon Ruyle]

A 100mm on a 1.6 will have a DOF greater by almost 1.6 than a 160mm would have on a full frame body at the same apertures.

By "at the same apertures" I think you mean "at the same f numbers". At the same apertures (ie, compare the 160mm lens at f/16 on FF with the 100mm at f/10 on 1.6FOVCF), the DOF would be exactly the same.

Lately thoughDenise has been posting macros that appear to have a fairly deep DOF, I believe using her new 70mm.


It makes me wonder if there is a benefit to shorter focal lengths using crop bodies for macro, just to get the deeper DOF at equal crop sizes.

I think this effect is very slight. From what I've seen and remember, Denise tends to shoot excellent medium closeups at less than 1x. For these, one can get good DOF without too much diffraction just by stopping down (if you're reading, please correct me if I'm wrong, Denise).