Favorite "Quazi-Macro" without the "Macro...

I'm just curious... what's you favorite lens to use for quazi-macros when you are not using an actual macro lens?

I used to own a 100mm, but just never got the results out of it I wanted. (more me than lens of course)

Now, I like using the 24-105mm at close range and I was wondering what others tend to use in the same situations.

FWIW, I haven't tried using the 17-55mm too much as a faux macro just yet.

...again, when you're NOT using a true macro.

I found that the 17-55 works pretty well for me. It doesn't get extremely close, but I've gotten some nice shots with it. Normally, I use a cheap 24-105 with macro filters for ring shots. It allows me quite a bit of flexibility without spending too much. Yes the quality isn't 100%, but these shots rarely get blown up too far.

I use my 24-70L. Gets darn close. 35L makes for some interesting "quazi-macro" shots. It gets within a few inches from the glass.

spphoto wrote in post #4233240
Normally, I use a cheap 24-105 with macro filters for ring shots. It allows me quite a bit of flexibility without spending too much. Yes the quality isn't 100%, but these shots rarely get blown up too far.

What filter are you talking about? The 500D? If so, how do you like it and do you have an example gallery with these shots only?

I'm wondering where this "cheap 24-105" is!

I use the 100mm F2.8 macro, it works great and does just want I want.

tim wrote in post #4235238
I use the 100mm F2.8 macro, it works great and does just want I want.

Same here

Back on subject...

amonline wrote in post #4232880
I'm just curious... what's you favorite lens to use for quazi-macros when you are not using an actual macro lens?

...again, when you're NOT using a true macro.

sblais wrote in post #4235689
Same here

amonline wrote in post #4235778
Back on subject...

I think the subject is how to get good macro images. A macro lens is the obvious choice.

I think he's asking those who havent got one how do you get round it...if you only very rarely soot macro is it worth buying a lens?

You can buy an adaptor ($10-$20) and reverse mount your kit lens (or any wide angle) to your camera for really extreme close ups.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

amonline wrote in post #4234076
What filter are you talking about? The 500D? If so, how do you like it and do you have an example gallery with these shots only?

They're just a set of macro filter I picked up for about $75 at my local camera shop. I think they're made buy some fliter company. They come as a set of +1, +2 and +4, I've found the +2 un combination with the +1 is usually the winner for ring shots. I don't have an example gallery of only these images, but I've attached some samples.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I'm wondering where this "cheap 24-105" is!

Sorry I meant 28-105 :P I usually use it at the long end though. Really any of the cheapy lenses would work for this, but it doubles as my standard lens for my film cameras (which I don't use for client work anymore)
http://www.vistek.ca …8&CategoryID=Ca​meraLenses

spphoto wrote in post #4239315
They're just a set of macro filter I picked up for about $75 at my local camera shop. I think they're made buy some fliter company. They come as a set of +1, +2 and +4, I've found the +2 un combination with the +1 is usually the winner for ring shots. I don't have an example gallery of only these images, but I've attached some samples.

How much of a crop do they force? (if any) Just want to know what is given up in enlargement.

edit: I see it's the Quantarays... they actually get pretty good reviews. For $26, they're worth a try sometime. Thanks for mentioning them!

amonline wrote in post #4240035
How much of a crop do they force? (if any) Just want to know what is given up in enlargement.

None, and I've blown them up to about 8x12 or so and they still look good. Theres a bit more CA around the edges, but that's usually out of focus anyway so it doesn't look that bad.

I should also mention that they reduce your DoF to virtually none if you shoot at any large aperture, so it's not something I'd want to do without lots of light. I usually shoot for around f8 I think (I could check exif, but I'm lazy).

tim wrote in post #4235238
I use the 100mm F2.8 macro, it works great and does just want I want.

Same here. I wouldn't use anything else.