OK I rented a macro lens and had a love hate thing going on with it. I love closeups and macro shots, but found it very frustrating. It hurt my back being hunched over the tripod for 2-3 hours. But some of my shots were fun!
here are some of the shots:
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE |
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE |
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE |
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE |
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE |
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE |
The narrow DOF really got me. I just had a real hard time with the whole thing, but at the same time had fun. I prefer flower shots outside in natural lighting (these were bought the day I got the lens and taken in natural light from a window (the leaves and ladybug were outside) and wonder if it's worth it to get a macro lens. I've been going back and forth on this for a while. I don't need 1:1 macro just closeups and real closeups. Should I just get tubes for my 70-200? Or should I save for a macro. (I'd prefer the working distance on the 100 over the 60)









