Relative Mertits?: Dedicated Macro vs Extender Tubes vs Raynox DCR-250

Started Jul 27, 2011 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
SpikeTheGlynn
Junior MemberPosts: 49
Like?
Relative Mertits?: Dedicated Macro vs Extender Tubes vs Raynox DCR-250
Jul 27, 2011

Hi. I'd like to tap into the obvious expertise on this forum by asking for people's advice and experience concerning the relative merits of different technologies to achieve macro.

As background I possess a DSLR with a number of lenses (kit lenses, a prime, a fisheye, and a couple of other zooms) and I find that I really favour close-up or pseudo-macro images of flowers and such. An example of the type of photos I've been taking to date in this category is:

I'd like to take that next step and acquire the tools to take better/"truer" macro images - insects, water droplets, the whole gamut.

I'm looking at several options and would welcome any and all advice:

  • Dedicated Macro lens - Looking at the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro

  • Extension tubes - goes between body and existing lens to allow closer focusing (reduces MFD)

  • Addon lens such as Raynox DCR-250 - adds on the end of an existing lens and magnifies the image.

I'm particularly interested in IQ (Image Quality - e.g., will additional glass such as the Raynox lead to a drop in IQ?) and versatility (e.g., the Tamron is a fixed focal length; whereas the other two options could be employed across the range of focal lengths my existing lenses cover), but any and all thoughts are welcome.

Many thanks!

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow