Help getting my macro "fix" without a macro lens...

I'm in a bit of a tight spot and have been selling off gear to pay bills (also I am getting married soon!)

My lens and speedlite "collection" has shrunken considerably over the past few months, and now I am debating giving up my 100 Macro.

Basically, I have not been making any money with my photography and I still consider it an (expensive) hobby. The few times I take my 100 Macro out I enjoy it and get nice shots with it, but more ofthen than not, the excellent lens sits unused.

If I do decide to part with it, does anyone have any experiance shooting macro (or cropping to such a distance) with a 5dmk2 and a 16-35, 24-105, 70-200 2.8is (im assuming tubes would be needed). Alternativly, I may let the 16-35 and 24-105 go in favor of a 24-70... so if someone has examples with that, i would appreciate it as well.

I know such a setup wont compare to a dedicated macro lens like my 100, but if it would allow me to keep only my more used lenses with me, a set of tubes to grab a macro when needed, it may be more cost effective for me.

Thank you very much. I wish I could keep all the lenses I have (and had) but for some reason I havent been able to grow a money tree

A set of tubes costs $170-200, so you would only be losing about $200 (assuming you can sell the 100mm for $400ish).

I did end up selling my macro lens again but in the end, I needed the money for my wedding, and it was hardly taken out anyway.

Basically with tubes, I know they cost about half as much as a macro lens, but thats still money saved, and they would be easier to throw into an accessory bag for when I might want to take some macro, without wanting to lug an additional lens with me.

I have seen a bunch of statistics regarding some lenses with a full set of tubes giving you about a 1:1, but I'd appreciate examples or opinions with such a setup and the lenses currently in my sig (16-35 mk2, 24-105, 70-200/2.8IS as well as a 24-70 which I may replace the 16&24 with if it proves to be a better option)

hi there, my 100mm macro is being repaired, shot this yesterday with -
18-50mm zoom with a 12mm extension tube added. ex tubes work great on all lenses at different working distances/ magnifications.
at 50mm position.
phil

GOLDENORFE wrote in post #8423534
hi there, my 100mm macro is being repaired, shot this yesterday with -
18-50mm zoom with a 12mm extension tube added. ex tubes work great on all lenses at different working distances/ magnifications.
at 50mm position.
phil

wow! that is an awesome picture! What kind of tubes did you get? and how much? I'm new to macro, but its what I got into photography for =P And i dont quite understand tubes or how they work, but if they are cheaper than getting a real macro lens, i might just have to do that !

GOLDENORFE....

Are you casting for a new Godzilla movie???

Is that a 100% crop???

How did you get those colossal praying mantises to stay still before they went on to destroy a major city???

I think its safe to say you just sold me on extension tubes... I am actually surprised you said you only used a 12mm. I fully appreciate the quality of the 100/macro (I owned it twice!)... but for the admittedly casual macro shooter such as myself, this may be the best option for me.

I am just surprised that from my searches there seems to be so little information on macro using tubes with various lenses as opposed to a dedicated macro lens. If there are any resources you may be aware of, I would love to hear more about it.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to grab a few gallons of Raid to keep within arms reach before I go to bed... these guys are so cute they scare me!