Macro...

[soggydiverdan]

I've got a canon 400d.

just a quick question...
is the nifty fifty any good for macro work?
As have a 70-300 with macro function, and want a better way to do macro
(i.e. not having to levitate 6foot off the floor to take any photos!)
and can't afford a dedicated macro lens!

 

[cw318is]

In a word, no. It just hasn't got the right working focus length and magnification of a good macro lens. Where it could work though is if you get a reversing ring and attach it to your 70-300.

 

[soggydiverdan]

ok..
I may just save up the pennies for a real macro lens then...

 

[tris101]

I would buy a real macro lens, Tamron 90mm macro's are a great lens.

 

[dentedshed]

ok..
I may just save up the pennies for a real macro lens then...

Get some extension tubes. Cheap enough and you'll get most of your money back should you decide to buy a full macro lens.

 

[Pete B]

Cheap extension tubes £5, manual focus and all the rest, they work, no cheap lenses to go through, play with em, and post some shots

 

[petersmart]

Cheap extension tubes £5, manual focus and all the rest, they work, no cheap lenses to go through, play with em, and post some shots

The only trouble with the cheap tubes is that on a Canon you usually have to shoot wide open as there is no connection between the camera and the lens.

This can result in pics which can look pretty awful since macros at full aperture have paper thin DOF and and many lenses do not perform well at full apertures.

Also one thing seldom mentioned when discussing extension tubes is that they can also increase CA since most lenses are designed to have minimum CA at the focal plane.

Once these lenses are moved away from the FP different colours start to diverge and begin to show up more as increased CA.

.

 

[mipevo6]

Raynox 250 might be worth a try or decent extension tubes...