100mm Macro alternative

[Dan Doucette]

Hello.

I have a 100mm macro lens. It's a great lens in almost every way... this I am not disputing. The problem is that I only use it for occasional macro work, so unless I know I will likely need the macro capability, I don't take it out with me. Most of my photography is non-macro in nature so it really does not get used much.

I primarily shoot with the 16-35 (mkI), 24-70, and 70-200 (f/2.8 IS). Since I already take these lenses everywhere, is there a decent combination of extension tubes and/or close up lenses that can come close to replicating the capabilities of the 100mm.

I know that the 100mm will always give me best results, but that's no good if it's sitting at home. I'm hoping that I can add an EF 25 II extension tube and either a 500D or 250D close up lens onto either the 24-70 or 70-200 to replicate most of the capabilities of the dedicted macro lens.

Has anyone tried this or seen it tried? How much do I lose by not using a dedicated macro lens? Do you think the trade off is worth it considering the small amount of macro that I do and the advantages of having this smaller set up with me more often (and not sitting at home)? I value good image quality; how much of a negative impact would an alternative macro set up have? Is the alternative set up too difficult to use and can it get to 1:1 magnification?

Any thoughts or input would be appreciated... especially if you have first hand experience.

-Dan

[pturton]

For occasional closeups, why not get the 500D diopter lens for your 70-200? Or if you need closer to life size occasioanlly, a set of macro diopters from Raynox http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/35mmacc/egcm2000.htm may serve your purpose.

Both the 500D and MicroExplorer cost ~$120.

My son uses his Raynox set on his 70-200 f4 L IS and is quite pleased with the results.

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro + 12x MicroExplorer Diopter for about 2.4x life size.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6346450-lg.jpg

[n1as]

I'm in the same boat with my EF-S 60. Great lens, usually left at home. I guess I'm not a macro maniac. One nice thing about the 60, is it is smaller and easier to just toss in there & take along. For that reason I think it is a better macro lens for the occasional macro photographer.

Or the Sigma 50 f/2.8 macro. $250 or so.

I considered extension tubes but they're not all that cheap and take up room in the bag too, so I went with the small lens.

[Katzer1]

I have a tamron 28-75 and it works wonderfully with an extension tube. I can get very close with a 12mm.
I would defintly give the 24-70 a try with a tube.
You can check out the results here:
http://www.pbase.com/katzer/tamron_28_75_macro

This is not say that I will give up on my Sigma 50 & 150 macros either...
HTH,
Erez

[gasrocks]

I teach a class in Macro. I have 3 different lenses that I bought, not to use but just to sell to my students. They fit a NIkon or Canon body and are sharp. Each is only $140. MF only, but I cannot imagine macro without MF anyway. Point? Macro does not have to cost a lot.

[Jman13]

One of the best ways to do macro without a macro lens is tubes on a 50mm prime. Very sharp, very close (1.5:1 with 3 tubes) and the 50mm does double duty as a fast general purpose lens and a macro.

[Dorman]

I've had decent results using extension tubes on a 70-200, better results with a 50mm prime. None will be as good or as easy as a dedicated macro lens, but they are workable alternatives.

[Sasquatch41]

I use Kenko extension tubes (set of 3) with a 70-200 f2.8 is or an 85 f1.8 or a 50 f1.4. I am very happy with the results without any macro lenses. I will try to post a miniature rose that I think turned out with this setup.

[Sasquatch41]

It worked. This rose is only about 1/2 inch across in real life. Taken at appx 150mm with two extension tubes and diffused flash thru a milk jug

[JeffreyG]

I have the EF 50/2.5 CM. It only goes to 1:2, but that's usually close enough for my macro dabbling and better than you will get with extensions and such.

The Compact Macro is cheap (you can find them used under $200), small (smaller than a 50/1.4) and very sharp.

I like it because it answers a lot of the problems stated by the OP. I'm sure the 100mm macro is way better for serious macro shooting, but mostly I'm taking pictures of flowers or other interesting things close up and putting the 50CM in my bag is like putting in a TC....no big deal.

[Red Dot]

i'd suggest going with the 24-70 with ext tubes.
It naturally has a mag of 0.3x and with tubes would give a greater mag.
plus the focal range is perfect, providing your not too far from the subject

[The Ghost of FM]

To the OP,

You might also consider once in a while taking along your macro and leaving your heavier, larger, 70-200 at home as the EF 100 f/2.8 macro also makes for an excellent prime that has decent reach at it's focal length.

Cheers! :)



.

[rc13k]

Very interesting. I was just wondering for those of you that have tried the 50mm and extension tube combo, what's the working distance that you get?

[versedmb]

To the OP,

You might also consider once in a while taking along your macro and leaving your heavier, larger, 70-200 at home as the EF 100 f/2.8 macro also makes for an excellent prime that has decent reach at it's focal length.

Cheers! :)

.


I agree with this sentiment.

I think people forget that their macro lens is good for so much more.

I use my 60mm macro for landscapes, portraits, sports (I've shot horsebackriding and wakeboarding with it!!), as well as close-up/macro.







Here's a wakeboarding shot with the 60mm macro.....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/266039040_phXf8-L.jpg