| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2005 09:02:55 PM · #1 |
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 09:05:59 PM · #2 |
you already have one, the 50/1.8. What you need are extension tubes. A set of Kenko extension tubes will run you $159, but give you flexibility in the amount of magnification you get.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 09:06:51 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 09:07:07 PM · #4 |
The real problem is the "and" as in inexpensive AND effective, especially for macro. I have myself the 70-300mm APO II Macro from Sigma wich is not the most luxury lens out there but it's not inexpensive nor effective as a macro lens. I think a choice is to be made between the two...
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 09:08:58 PM · #5 |
I bought a macro lens last weekend. It was a cheapy Promaster 100mm fixed lens, not sure on all of the specs as I'm a newbie. I got it at the local camera shop. It was inexpensive, only time will tell how effective it is.
The internet is a great place to search, but don't forget to look locally as well, here in St. Louis there is always used/inexpensive camera equipment in the newspaper and local camera shop.
Good luck! :)
-jyo
jyoseph.com |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 09:29:00 PM · #6 |
| Depends on how much you want to spend... I don't know what your definition of inexpensive is. I'd say the Canon 100mm f2.8 is probably going way over budget but sigmas 105 mm macro can be had for about 330 US dollars or cheaper if you buy the older non dg version. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 09:40:29 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
you already have one, the 50/1.8. What you need are extension tubes. |
I had to sell that lens to get one of the other lenses. It was the first lens I had, and it came with the camera. It wasn't that good at macro. Still had to be good 15 inches away. I want something that sets only a few inches away and can run in low light like that 50mm. :-/
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 10:26:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by dpakoh:
Originally posted by kirbic:
you already have one, the 50/1.8. What you need are extension tubes. |
I had to sell that lens to get one of the other lenses. It was the first lens I had, and it came with the camera. It wasn't that good at macro. Still had to be good 15 inches away. I want something that sets only a few inches away and can run in low light like that 50mm. :-/ |
Too bad. The solution that I suggested would have enabled that lens to get very close indeed.
Another potential solution is to pout a "diopter" on the front of one of your other lenses. This would work on your 28-105 and enable you to get much closer. BTW, there are cheaper versions out there, but don't be tempted, the results will not be pretty. Get the Canon version.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:13:32 PM · #9 |
Depends what you mean by inexpensive. I just snagged the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX for $275 after shipping on eBay (non DG version). Otherwise, I would suggest the extension tubes - or a macro coupler ring for your 50mm. See this thread for some more info on the coupler ring.
edit: Sorry, didn't read the post about you selling the lens - but I'll just leave my post as is for anyone that may be interested in coupler info.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 23:22:52.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:18:40 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Too bad. The solution that I suggested would have enabled that lens to get very close indeed. |
Well its not that bad of an option. the lens I could get for under $100 as well as adding the $159 would make at most $250.
Which is still cheaper than most macro lens options.. I did like the results of that lens. Especially with this shot.
Low light and very crisp results.
Oh and BTW.. Thanks for the help ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 23:19:18.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 07:30:12 AM EDT.
