70-200 macro shots?

Anybody have any macro shots with extension tubes and any of the 70-200 lenses? I'm just curious, cause my Sigma 70-300 APO can be used for macro (with/without extension tubes) and do a half decent job. The 70-200 is a much higher quality lens, so I'm curious how it preforms.

It's ok, doesn't match up with the nifty fifty and tubes! but you do get more working distance...

http://www.deviantart.​com …=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps

How 'bout some Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro EX HSM shots too! A little somethin' to whet my appetite with.

Just remember JaGwire that your Sigma compared to the Canon isn't going to be close with Macro. The Sigma has much better macro capabilities. The Canon would need tubes to get the same magnification.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2142587
How 'bout some Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro EX HSM shots too! A little somethin' to whet my appetite with.

Just remember JaGwire that your Sigma compared to the Canon isn't going to be close with Macro. The Sigma has much better macro capabilities. The Canon would need tubes to get the same magnification.

Yes, that is why I'm interested in shots taken with tubes too.

And I am interested in any 70-200 shots, or even shots taken with a 200 prime. I'm not fussy, just looking for what is possible with these lenses and tubes or even without tubes.

Here is a MACRO shot with a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG HSM (NON MACRO) with extention tubes:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

With the 70-200 you get the most macro at 70mm and all the tubes stacked together.

Headcase650 wrote in post #2143010
With the 70-200 you get the most macro at 70mm and all the tubes stacked together.

Is it any good though?

I was curious about my 85 1.8 and tubes as well, but who knows.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2143479
Is it any good though?

I was curious about my 85 1.8 and tubes as well, but who knows.

Your primes will work far better and be mush easier to shoot with.

I use the Kenko tubes with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and it works great. A lighter, smaller and brighter prime would work better... But I go with what I got.

Pete-eos wrote in post #2144829
Your primes will work far better and be mush easier to shoot with.

So you think the 85 1.8 with tubes and 50 1.8 with tubes would do decent?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2145824
So you think the 85 1.8 with tubes and 50 1.8 with tubes would do decent?

Depends on what you're after but absolutely. The longer the focal length, the more working distance you have. The shorter the focal length, the closer the working distance... But at greater magnification. I prefer 50mm and beyond - as much as 200mm. So your 50mm and 85mm should be great.

an advantage of the zoom is that you can use the zoom ring to focus with. and if you need more working distance, you just zoom to a longer FL (at a loss of magnification).

>>>this<<< was with a sigma 70-200 and tubes....

DavidEB wrote in post #2145848
an advantage of the zoom is that you can use the zoom ring to focus with. and if you need more working distance, you just zoom to a longer FL (at a loss of magnification).

>>>this<<< was with a sigma 70-200 and tubes....

Looking good!

DavidEB wrote in post #2145848
an advantage of the zoom is that you can use the zoom ring to focus with. and if you need more working distance, you just zoom to a longer FL (at a loss of magnification).

>>>this<<< was with a sigma 70-200 and tubes....

Preposition ending a sentence like that......no-no
We seem to have learnt nothing in the past few months, au contraire, we might have suffered a decay of epistolary standards.

Petkal wrote in post #2145983
Preposition ending a sentence like that......no-no
We seem to have learnt nothing in the past few months, au contraire, we might have suffered a decay of epistolary standards.

Hey I emssaged sugarzebra, no response, you still interesetd in doing something this weekend? Perhaps shooting with a fisheye duckies? .