Gadget-Guy Senior Member  More info | Sep 06, 2006 07:34 | #1 Was wondering if anyone has any experience at using a 300mm f2.8 as a macro lens? After investing such a lot of money in a lens i would like to try and get the most out of it and wonderd if anyone had used extension tubes etc and got good results.If i stack the TCs i have i get quiet a good result but the minimum focusing distance is still about 8 foot from the subject.
Thanks for any advice you can give. The equipment you'll leave at home will be the equipment you'll need the most!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Pete I was "Prime Mover" many years back....  38,631 posts Likes: 25 Joined Jul 2006 Location: Berkshire, UK More info | Sep 06, 2006 07:37 | #2 Wow, that's a fiercly narrow DOF with those TCs added.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
racketman Cream of the Crop  More info | Sep 06, 2006 14:40 | #3 Might have a use for capturing in-flight Dragonflies but otherwise not the handiest set up for macros. I have a 300 f4 which I have tried out with 'tame' butterflies. In the wild I would be glad of the working distance perhaps:
Toby
LOG IN TO REPLY |
racketman Cream of the Crop More info | Pete-30D wrote: Wow, that's a fiercly narrow DOF with those TCs added. I'd also like to know what would happen if I put extension tubes on my 70-200? again a tame butterfly, this time with the 70-200f4 (no tube), tubes will get you closer but youd be better off with a shorter prime.
Toby
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LordV Macro Photo-Lord of the Year 2006  More info | Sep 06, 2006 15:00 | #5 Remembering that a normal macro lens has a max magnification of 1:1, the formula for working out the magnification of adding ext tubes to a non- macro lens is http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 06, 2006 15:33 | #6 Thanks for the replies guys,it was just a thought as most of the time the 300 sits in its case but i would hate to sell it.Will have to invest in a set of tubes in any case and have a play with them and start saving for a macro lens.Had a stunning lens for my old Minolta which gave 3x magnification but i sold the lot when i changed to digital and invested it all in Canon gear. The equipment you'll leave at home will be the equipment you'll need the most!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
racketman Cream of the Crop More info | Sep 06, 2006 16:17 | #7 i'll swap you my Sigma 150macro - you can still take motor sports though you may find the AF a tad slower. Toby
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dpastern Cream of the Crop 13,765 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Ipswich, Queensland, Australia More info | Sep 06, 2006 17:31 | #8  Permanent banIf you can afford a 300mm f2.8 (lucky bastard), then you can afford a set of tubes to go with your 50mm, or better still, a dedicated macro lens
LOG IN TO REPLY |
photobitz PlatinumMeasurebaiter  6,501 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: NSW, Australia More info | LordV wrote: Remembering that a normal macro lens has a max magnification of 1:1, the formula for working out the magnification of adding ext tubes to a non- macro lens is Mag= length of tubes mm/focal length of lens. So a 300mm with the normal 68mm of tubes would give 0.23:1 Obviously adding a TC as well would multiply this magnification but overall you would end up with a pretty unwieldy lens but fine for butterflies and dragonflies. A 70-200mm lens with a full set of tubes and the lens set at 70mm would give just under 1:1 so would be far more sensible. By full set of tubes I mean similar to a Kenko set. Brian V. Brian, that being the case... why aren't people using the 28mm or 24mm with tubes? I calculate approx 2.4:1 for the 28mm 2.8:1 for the 24mm. Is it something to do with distortion? Dan
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dpastern Cream of the Crop 13,765 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Ipswich, Queensland, Australia More info | Permanent ban Dan, you would get extremely bad distortion at the edges plus severe vignetting I suspect.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
photobitz PlatinumMeasurebaiter 6,501 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: NSW, Australia More info | Sep 06, 2006 19:39 | #11 The distortion could be cool Dan
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dpastern Cream of the Crop 13,765 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Ipswich, Queensland, Australia More info | Sep 06, 2006 19:40 | #12 Permanent banNope, haven't tried it Dan as I don't have a prime wide angle, only my 20-35mm f2.8.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
photobitz PlatinumMeasurebaiter 6,501 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: NSW, Australia More info | Sep 06, 2006 19:51 | #13 |
dpastern Cream of the Crop 13,765 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Ipswich, Queensland, Australia More info | Permanent ban photobitz wrote: ..and what result did you get with that? Never tried it rofl!!!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
photobitz PlatinumMeasurebaiter 6,501 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: NSW, Australia More info | Sep 06, 2006 20:02 | #15 |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 916 guests, 123 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
The problem is that that lens is very heavy, and very large. For dragonfly/butterfly/damselfies it might be ok, but it's very cumbersome and you'll almost certainly have to use a monopod at the minimum, most probably a tripod. 
like using a wideangle on a close portrait, except for bugs! I don't think there'd be too much vignetting on a 1.6x crop... of course I might be wrong... Anyone actually tried it??