Need An Opinion
CyberSteak
Registered Users Posts: 280 Major grins
Ok I currently do any macro work with a Canon 500D diopter attatched to various lenses (28-135, 70-300, 10-22). But I've been really tempted to get a dedicated macro lens. Specifically Canon's 100mm macro. So saying that, is there any point in keeping the 500D if I buy a dedicated lens? Still fairly new to photography so I don't have a complete understanding of the 500D's bennefits and limitations. If it's redundant to have it with a dedicated lens, I'll just sell it and make the macro lens far more affordable.
Input appreciated.
Input appreciated.
http://www.betterphoto.com/Premium/Default.aspx?id=329340&mp=V1
Canon 40D, 28-135mm, 50mm f/1.8, 10-22mm, 70-300, 580 EXII, ST-E2, 500D Diopter
Canon 40D, 28-135mm, 50mm f/1.8, 10-22mm, 70-300, 580 EXII, ST-E2, 500D Diopter
0
Comments
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
My suggestion would be to wait a little while after getting the 100mm to decide, and see what place the 500D has in your kit once you're comfortable with it. Then figure out how much you'd get for selling the 500D and ask yourself if you'd spend that much to get that extra macro capability on top of the 100mm.
http://blog.michaelhampson.com
Brian V.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
so not much good at increasing mag in conjunction with a macro lens really
phil
moderator - Holy Macro
Goldenorfe’s Flickr Gallery
Goldenorfe photography on Smugmug
Phils Photographic Adventures Blog
Splendor awaits in minute proportions.
E.O. Wilson
Canon 40D, 28-135mm, 50mm f/1.8, 10-22mm, 70-300, 580 EXII, ST-E2, 500D Diopter