Am I missing out by using extension tubes?
ssimmonsphoto
Registered Users Posts: 424 Major grins
I use a set of tubes from Kenko, often in combination with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and fleaBay ring light. Although my "paying gig" is often shooting rings and other jewelry in macro, I like to take photos of flowers, water drops, etc. for fun. I've often wondered what exactly I might be missing out on by not having a true, dedicated macro. My lens drool list at this point is pretty short, so I'm curious. :dunno If I'm missing out on a lot, then what might you recommend as a good, all around macro.
0
Comments
I use a Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 (older version) and it's a very capable true macro lens at a pretty reasonable price.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I was able to snare the same lens that Ziggy uses, a few years ago, from eBay for one hundred bucks with a few dollars for shipping.
It is a very good macro lens. I like using a true macro lens because
#1 it is exceptionally sharp. Around f/5.6 to f/11, my lens is as sharp as my L glass.
#2 it is very versatile because it can focus from infinity to 1:1. When I have used extension tubes, the distance I could focus with these was limited.
BTW: Tamron came out with a new 90mm f/2.8 AF SP Di macro lens which is supposed to be optimized for digital use. However, my older Tamron (without the Di designator) is exceptionally sharp. But, the previous model 90mm Tamron f/2.5 Adapt-All macro lens is not a good selection because it doesn't have the same great IQ and can be problematic to use on an EOS camera. Sometimes used Tamron f/2.8 AF SP lenses are confused for the earlier model (especially if the seller has not written a good description) and they sell at fairly low prices. This was the best lens value I ever found...