8th January 2005, 07:21 PM
Close up lens for macro photography?
I am going to Pulau Ubin in Feb to do some macro but I don't have any macro lenses. I have never tried taking macro photos either and don't want to fork out over $500 for something I don't know if I am going to use again. Someone suggested using close up lens instead. Can anyone let me know if this is sufficient and how a close up filter works. Thank you.
8th January 2005, 07:23 PM
wat r u shooting in the first place?
8th January 2005, 11:19 PM
I don't know but I will find out as I am going in a group. Most likely flowers.
8th January 2005, 11:33 PM
if i'm not wrong it does what its name implies, make the subject appear closer.
8th January 2005, 11:55 PM
what lenses do you have in the first place?
9th January 2005, 09:33 PM
This isn't 100% correct. Besides the minimum focusing distant, you need to see the ration this lens can give you, macro 1:1? 1:5? 1:0.5?
Originally Posted by Climber
1:1 will give you the life size which means what you see from your viewfinder is actually the same size as the subject. 1:2 is half the size of the subject, of course 1:0.5 give you a bigger size than your subject, where this is what you want from a macro lens.
By having a close-up lens, yes, you could approach your subject near by after going that close, can you see the details of your subject? Or will your subject flying going away eg shooting insects.
Therefore, ask yourself a simple question, what are you going to shoot with this lens?
9th January 2005, 09:39 PM
i find myself using the 135 - 200mms, on any old zoom, i used a 70-300 once, and i often get good results with a Hoya 2+ close up filter. (I must warn you bokeh [out of focus areas] is like crap. The only set back with the set up.)
I'm going to rant about the canon EF50mm 2.5 macro but hey! thats me. *rant*RanT*
Try close up filters.. start small... dream big.. like the 180mm macro. =)
Thinking abt it SUBJECT is very impt.
I shot butts with the above mentioned setup. 50mm is for less active subjects, but some butts are quite sedate.
10th January 2005, 03:36 AM
As in people's rear ends? That's a bit naughty.
Originally Posted by moos blues
10th January 2005, 05:52 PM
Ha ha Jess, I think he meant butterflies?
11th January 2005, 12:57 PM
OH! lmao, ok. I'll keep that in mind in the future, heh.