Cheaper alternative for macro lens?

[elavan]

those lenses don't give you much macro, most of them are 0.25x mag, the dedicated ones are 1x mag, so for those tele lenses conveniently slapped with "macro" ability strictly are only able to give you "close-up", not considered "macro"..

 

[Gengh]

Tamron AF 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD Macro -AF Lens for Pentax USED, worth getting not? i saw the extention tubes very cheap but isit easy mounting it on?

The Tamron is worth getting as a budget telephoto lens, but if your purpose is macro, it's not that great. It's only 1:2 macro, so objects smaller than roughly 4-5 cm in size won't fill the frame. Shooting macro at 300mm means you'll most certainly need a tripod, or flash (not sure if pop-up flash will be blocked by the lens). On the other hand, it can be quite good for some bigger and more easily frightened insects like butterflies, since 300mm allows you to be further away.

If you don't yet have a telephoto lens, and just want to try your hand at macro, the Tamron is a good buy. If you're looking to do more serious macro, should consider spending more and getting the Tamron 90mm or DFA100mm (I'm guessing there's going to be some on B&S from people waiting for the WR version ).

 

[cutiedoggy]

hmmm thanks for ALL the advices! think i'll try out the raynox 250 one first before i venture out into other macro lenses