![]() |
|
|||||||
| Newbies Corner The best place for those new to photography and ClubSNAP. |
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,103
|
Hmm, if i were to get a 2x extender, will the minimum focusing distance of my Macro lens be multiplied by 2 also?? or it remains the same??
Also, is it advisable to use a 2x extender for macrography to provide a longer working space? btw, i'm using the tamron 90mm macro.. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,638
|
MOD will still be the same.
Not advisable. -lose 2 stop of light (harder to MF due to darker VF) -lost in image quality -more diffcult to handheld due to longer focal lenght(up to individual) |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Western side of Singapore
Posts: 1,163
|
ditto the above.
As a side note, you will also get double the magnification at the minimum focussing distance. Its up to you whether you find the corresponding loss of image quality acceptable. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,103
|
oh... so that means i'll have to get a longer lens.... booo..
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Western side of Singapore
Posts: 1,163
|
Since the long macro lens are seriously expensive, you might consider the alternate option of going with a long telephoto with extension tubes. I've thought about this problem not too long ago (aka last week
) and asked around in a different website and got this answer:A Nikon PN-11 (52.5mm extension) with the 180mm f2.8 ED would get me 1:2.3 with a working distance of 0.66m, while a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8 with a 2X teleconvertor at the same 1:2.3 ratio has a working distance of 0.47m but is able to go down to 2:1. I would lose autofocus going the extension tube route (which is sort of moot since I'm doing macro) but would have potentially better image quality than with the 2X. |
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|