cheaper macro lens instead of $1000 Nikon

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
HappyPooPants
Junior MemberPosts: 49Gear list
Like?
Re: cheaper macro lens instead of $1000 Nikon
In reply to D Cox, 9 months ago

D Cox wrote:

You don't want to be shining bright lights or flash at a new baby.

I suggest using a close-up lens (Raynox or similar) on a standard lens, as this avoids the big loss of light given by a macro lens or by extension tubes. You also retain auto-focus and stabilisation.

(A macro lens is basically a lens with built-in extension tubes.)

yeah I was worried it 2.8 would be good enough for indoor shots without a flash.
I'm looking into the Raynox as they're fairly cheap and have seen some good shots with this..
but i've also seen some bad ones.. I'm going to try and test one in a shop.

since it's just like a magnify glass, i'm worried i will lose quality.. 
but it seems ;

-extension tube - lose light and some qaulity

-filter - lose quality.

do you think putting this on a 50 1.8 would be ok? As I don't believe I will be able to focus any closer, or am I not understanding this right?
Thanks again!

 HappyPooPants's gear list:HappyPooPants's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow