> "Ross Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With my previous setup, a Pentax ZX-50 and Tamron 28-200 Super(my first > SLR setup), I found that (1) I definitely liked shooting macro, and (2) > I could rarely get close enough for my liking with that lens (1:3.9 I > think). From those that like to shoot in the macro world, I'd love some > feedback on whether or not this is a good avenue to follow initially, > versus reverse rings, extension tubes, and the like. It is better to use a real macro lens than to try to use the extensions and reversing rings on a standard lens. The macro lens is designed for the closeup work, and has certain features that are useful: 1) Flat field 2) Engravings for effective f/stop at close focus distances. I don't know if #2 applies to the new lenses or not, but my 30 year old 55mm Micro has all sorts of engravings to help with exposure. Of course, none of that is needed with TTL flash, thankfully. > Only one of my > other two lenses I plan to buy would be a candidate for those items, the > 24-50 3.3-4.5D Using an extension tube on a zoom is very weird. I have tried my M ring (27.5mm) on my 24-50, and it is hard to use. The problem is that the needed extension varies based on focal length. The zoom's internal focussing compensates, but the extension ring obviously cannot. A close-up adapter (like a filter) probably does not suffer this problem. I've never tried a reversing ring on a zoom, but it is probably as weird as an extension ring. > but I'm not sure it would work well with a zoom anyway, > even if only at 50. Still, if it produces markedly better results, the > 60 Micro is definitely my first choice. If you can afford it, the Macro will probably be a lot easier to use. But, an extension ring on the 24-50 will work. And if you can keep yourself from zooming, shouldn't be too bad. Reversing the 24-50 would probably be odd, considering how much the front turns when focusing and zooming. Do you have a longer prime lens? An extension ring on a longer lens will let you keep a longer working distance. The important math is that the needed extension in millimeters, to get 1:1 reproduction, is the same as the focal length. For a 60mm lens to get a lifesize image onto the film, the lens must be moved from the infinity position by 60mm. Amazingly, the 60mm f/2.8 does this without an extension ring. If you have a 200mm lens, you would get lifesize film images using a 200mm extension ring, even with the lens set on infinity. This is usually not desirable. Instead, use a 27.5 or 50mm extension, and use the lens focussing to get closer. Macro photography can be tricky, so I'd recommend trying the combinations you are considering, at least in a store, before purchasing. Especially the odder possibilities, like an extension or reverser on the 24-50. I cannot address the resulting image quality from any of these setups. I don't do that much macro anymore. Dan.
