A couple of commencement addresses:
I’m trying to convince myself that I can get along perfectly well with an extension tube and I don’t really need a macro lens. Well, maybe.
A token selfie, showing my best side. Don’t expect any more.
Trivia that matter
A couple of commencement addresses:
I’m trying to convince myself that I can get along perfectly well with an extension tube and I don’t really need a macro lens. Well, maybe.
A token selfie, showing my best side. Don’t expect any more.
Comments are closed.
A good set of close-up lens filters would improve your magnification for less money (unless you went hunting for the Nikon T-series filters, which, by the way, are really nice). Raynox has an interesting set that uses a smallish lens and a snap-on adapter; you can get terrific magnification, with some risk of vignetting.
And of course there’s always the old trick of reverse-mounting a 35mm or 50mm lens to the front of your main lens. Heavier than a close-up filter, but higher quality, and all it costs is a filter ring if you already have an old manual lens lying around.
-j
Back in the days of film and wet darkrooms, I tried various strategies for high-magnification photography short of a proper (pricey) macro lens: close-up filters, extension tubes, bellows, reversed lenses, stacked lenses, medium and large format. None of them were entirely satisfactory. Probably the best system was an old Mamiya twin-lens reflex, with bellows focusing, and a “paramender.” You could get macro-range magnification on a medium-format negative (I don’t remember if it went all the way to 1:1, but I could get close), which was very nice indeed.
Sounds like you have the same pile of parts lying around that I do. 🙂
I like my Tamron 90/2.8 Macro, but my biggest regret is never buying the Minolta 200/4 Macro when it came out; terrific working distance at 1:1.
-j