Want macro: Extension tubes or Macro lens?

Shane

Suspended / Banned
Messages
585
Name
Shane
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I currently have a Canon 18-135mm on a 50D. I want to start getting closer to whatever subject I'm shooting. Do I go for extension tubes or a cheap Macro lens?
Thanks
 
Wide range zooms don't generally lend themselves very well to extension tubes. Chances are that sharpness may be already tailing off at minimum focus, and to extend it with tubes will degrade it further.
If you want a real macro lens, i.e. be able to reproduce at 1:1 magnification, then there's no such thing as cheap, although some telezooms such as the Tamron 70-300mm have a pseudo-macro facility. These will give ok-ish results but not as good as a dedicated macro lens. The advantage here is you also have a reasonable telezoom.
Another cheap way of getting close is to get an achromatic close-up lens. These screw onto your lens's filter thread.
Raynox DCR-150 or DCR-250 are pretty good and have a universal mount for a range of filter sizes.
These will allow you to get a feel for macro without a great deal of outlay, and with care can give surprisingly good results.
 
I used to have a Canon 60mm f2.8 macro and that was very very good. I really wish i still had it. Do look at the Raynox 250 as this is an inexpensive way of doing macro. Magnification will depend on the focal length of the lens you attach the Raynox to.

60m Canon macro


Raynox 250
 
:o That Raynox looks impressive may have to get one.
 
The Raynox filters look good! Do you think they would work okay with my current lens?
If I were to just bite the bullet and buy a dedicated Macro lens, which would you recommend?
Nice images Andy! :thumbs:
 
Back
Top