I hv a 75-300 f 4.5-5.6, a 70-210 f4, and the 50 f1.8.
Assuming distance is no issue, as I'm taking still life macros, which of the above 3 lenses will be more suited to use for macro photography?
Thx for the advice. I will get the raynox then. Just wanna try out macroing
Can give me a rough idea how much it cost? So tat I don get chopped when buying. Probably going to sls's Alan photo to buy.
Raynox 250 comes with snap-on universal mount for lens with 52mm to 67mm filter diameters.
Duh.
My Sony sal 50mm lens has 49mm thread...
Must waste money to but adaptor in this case...
Does yr 50mm comes with metal lens hood? U can clamp on the hood instead
Thx for the advice. I will get the raynox then. Just wanna try out macroing
Can give me a rough idea how much it cost? So tat I don get chopped when buying. Probably going to sls's Alan photo to buy.
You can purchase direct from McGill $120.
Last i heard MS is selling at $120 too.
I got mine direct from McGill.
Called in the afternoon, meetup in the evening, fast deal.
I got mine from Lensmate online from USA, total cost plus shipping direct to s'pore was about SGD100.
Hi everyone.
I currently own a 50mm f1.8 lens. Just wondering how well it will fare if I buy a close up filter for it to take macro shots, compared to a dedicated macro lens?
And how much does a close up filter cost typically?
Thanks.
I usually stack 2 pieces of Hoya +4 together. Here's an example of it with the addition of B+W MRC UV-Haze with bounced flash.
And by the way, a 52mm close up +4 is around $18. Price depends on magnification and filter size.