Macro for D40.

P

PauloWanClift

Suspended / Banned
Messages
917
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I've really not got the funds for a macro lens right now, I've seen extension tubes and saw someone else mention a Raynor in another thread.

What kind of results can you get with extension tubes and are there any other alternatives? My current lenses are kit 18-55, Nikkor 50mm 1.8 prime and Sigma 170mm-500mm.

I just saw these on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Macro-Close-U...683|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318#ebayphotohosting

The results certainly look good if there shots are actual results with these lenses of course.
 
PauloWanClift said:
No one got experience with these?
Click to expand...

Ideally macro pics are taken with a macro lens (as I'm sure you know) - There is no cheap solution to that level of quality but you can get decent results from the cheaper options like the Raynox which is a lens that clips on to an existing lens of your choice (a lot of people use them on longer zoom lenses) - I tried the 250 Raynox but found it hard to focus & depth of field is tiny
I can't look at the Ebay item (when at work) but suspect these are the set of close up filters that screw on to your lens like a filter (?) - Again you can get reasonable results but not as good (imho) as the Raynox type lens
You don't say what you plan to take macro pics of? - If its bugs etc a macro lens is essential - If it is stationary objects then the Raynox or close-up filters will work to a point
I haven't tried extension tubes but have seen good results using them ...
HTH
Paul
 
Bugs and flowers, I think I'll try the filters for now, there not exactly expensive. I tried my step dads 70mm sigma macro on his D300 the other week, and I want one badly now.
 
I've just borrowed Alby's Raynox 250, and boy is it hard work!
As PaulBoy said, focusing is very difficult, and the DOF is sooooo tiny is unreal!

But once it's mastered, I'm sure it will give good results for a fraction of the price of a macro lens.....
 
I have both, the cheap screw in type and the raynox, the cheap screw in one can give nice results but after you have got used to them you , like me will probably want something better, I bought the raynox which is a great little thing but i still want better, as you have tried a proper macro lens i think that you would find the screw in jobbies and to some extent the raynox a bit limiting. so I'm now trying to get the cash for a sigma 105 macro, I wish i'd just laid out for one in the first place :bang:
 
andy_fozzy said:
I've just borrowed Alby's Raynox 250, and boy is it hard work!
As PaulBoy said, focusing is very difficult, and the DOF is sooooo tiny is unreal!

But once it's mastered, I'm sure it will give good results for a fraction of the price of a macro lens.....
Click to expand...

I think its your discussion in a thread with him that got me looking at them, you did the inflight shots didn't you? I'll keep an eye out for your results :D
 
PauloWanClift said:
I think its your discussion in a thread with him that got me looking at them, you did the inflight shots didn't you? I'll keep an eye out for your results :D
Click to expand...

:D

Great memory!!

Yep, Alby loaned me his Raynox so I could get closer to the action of the hover flies in flight.
I haven't had a chance to play today, due to crap weather!

If there are any results, I shall be sure to post them!
 
Incidentally, I have heard that the type of things you mentioned on ebay in your first post are not very good.

If you can stretch a bit more for a Raynox, they seem to have a better reputation!
 
Don't mean to hi-jack the thread at all, but I'm also toying with the idea of a macro lens.

After reading a review on the 60mm, I'm not too sure now. You have to get so close to your subject that you risk poor lighting. Perhaps a 105mm would be a better choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top