The 25-50 has no 'macro' mode ....
As for the 28-50, apparently the 1:1.4 figure has been mangled into 1:4 over time and nobody bothered to verify. Perhaps if the magnification has been presented as 0.7x, the error could have been prevented. We will never know.
This is exactly why I want to test and record each of these lenses myself, because what you just said happens a lot (e.g., 1:1.4 gets morphed into 1:4, because 99% of those who "write reviews" just parrot their figures from some other source, without actually verifying and measuring themselves).
Your findings have cooled me down a bit on the 25-50 a bit, though its range reversed (albeit with a stepdown ring
) remains optimal. The reviews of its image quality, including your own, make it seem optimal.
I am ordering all manual zooms which I think have reverse-macro relevance to review them in categories I feel are important for field use. I have a mint 36-72mm Nikon Series E and a mint 28-50mm en route. I will get the others over the next month or so, and post a rather large article on my findings.
Thanks for looking into it.