500D and 70-200 For Macro
Paul
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag meaning
I will always have it with me.
The other option is using Kenko extension tubes on my 50mm lens, whereby
using the 36 and 12 extension tubes will effectively make it just under life
size, but is maybe not as flexible and will suffer from more light loss than
the 500D.
I know the 500D is no replacement for a proper macro lens, but anyone have
any experience using a 500D with a 70-200?
anthony_grimmens
>I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
>juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro I've
>yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
>considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
>half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
>better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag meaning
>I will always have it with me.
Don't waste your time. The amount of aperture-stop needed for the right DOF, and
needing to use a flash at those limited light levels, will make your
macro-photography unnatural and useless and annoying, but for the most
self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
Paul
news:af99h4df2nqvsnfm0...@4ax.com...
What P&S are you using?
LloydEvans
You reveal your supreme ignorance. This is true of *ALL* P&S cameras.
Catch up.
Jürgen Exner
>"anthony_grimmens" <agri...@wouldntyouliketoknow.org> wrote in message
>news:af99h4df2nqvsnfm0...@4ax.com...
>
>>>I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
>>>juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
>>>I've
>> self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor
>> to make
>> your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
>
>
>What P&S are you using?
Don't you recognize the troll with the extreme multiple personality
disorder?
jue
Archibald
>"anthony_grimmens" <agri...@wouldntyouliketoknow.org> wrote in message
>news:af99h4df2nqvsnfm0...@4ax.com...
>
>>>I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
>>>juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
>>>I've
>>>yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
>>>considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
>>>half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
>>>better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
>>>meaning
>>>I will always have it with me.
I use the 500D on my 70-300mm and it works great. Very sharp, terrific
working distance for subjects like dragonflies. The 500D is small, a
lot cheaper than a macro lens, and there is no light loss such as you
get with extension tubes. (Plus you would need extension tubes as long
as your arm to be useful at 300mm.)
Archibald
Alexander Owens
Too bad that you'll never understand the pleasure of working with several
diopters of high-quality close-up lenses plus an excellent telextender on a P&S
camera. It gives you phoenomenal working distance, huge aperture, and great
magnification with a useful DOF. Taking tack-sharp hand-held photos of the heads
of dragonflies in flight with fast shutter speeds without the need of flash is
child's play.
Keep trying with your ancient dslr gear, maybe you'll figure it out one day.
That you bought the wrong kind of camera.
Paul
news:qad9h4p5umm8kv9dq...@4ax.com...
Yes, but I'm interested in what P&S you use.
barack_...@hotmail.com
>You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
>and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
>your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
That's perfectly correct.
barack_...@hotmail.com
>You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
>and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
>your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
That's perfectly correct.
RaymondD
>
> You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
> and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
> your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
>
Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're the only one that mentions
male genitalia when you imagine that you are engaged in a conversation
with another male?
Really, think about it. Ask yourself why those are always some of the foremost
topics in your own mind when addressing others, and is not a consideration in
the mind of anyone else.
The rest of us already know why these topics are always on your mind, now it's
just a matter of you trying to figure it out.
What a sad little closet-case that you are. Overtly obvious, but sad. You so
desperately keep trolling for masculine involvement on the internet but it'll
never fill that gaping closet-case hole of yours.
Try to find what you are after in real life then you don't have to be such an
obvious close-case troll on the internet.
Do try to stay on topic and not let your unfulfilled homosexual needs get in the
way of that, would you?
That's a good chap.
Thanks.
We'll all appreciate it.
Why oh why do these insecure closet-cases try to use the internet to come out of
the closet. I can only guess because it's the safest way for them. Nobody in
their personal life has to know who they are. How pathetically and immaturely
sad. The people that I know who are gay and secure with their lives just look
down on these kinds of insecure fools with a glance of abject pity. How
pathetically sad.
And now, back to something photography related ....
Paul Furman
Yes I have a Canon 500D +2 diopter 2-element closeup lens (77mm thread)
and use it on the front of a 70-200/2.8 VR and other lenses with
step-down rings. Great for butterfly & bee chasing with the VR & no
light loss.
Where it suffers is reflective subjects such as shiny insects, there is
more flare/ghosting from reflections back & forth between all those
chunks of glass. The bokeh suffers too with those kinds of strong
highlights. As with extension tubes, it's going to be asking more from
the center of the lens than the lens was designed for. Speaking of
centers... I've used the 500D on a 300mm f/2.8 (112mm thread) by cutting
a 77mm hole in a makeshift plastic cap and that works fine because at
closest focus you only use the center anyways. So a smaller one might
work on a 70-200.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul
news:2yjRk.6053$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
Hello Paul. How does the bokeh suffer with highlights? Parts of the image
washed out?
Paul Furman
Bright rings on the edge of out-of-focus highlights. It's hard to say if
it's worse though, I'd need a 200mm macro lens to compare. I couldn't
find examples of that but here's some of/with the 500D
http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/11-13-07-cpu/pg1pc3
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/9-20-07-300mm
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/5-17-07-macro/pg1pc3
> Parts of the image washed out?
>
>
barack_...@hotmail.com
>Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're the only one that mentions
>male genitalia when you imagine that you are engaged in a conversation
>with another male?
>
>Really, think about it. Ask yourself why those are always some of the foremost
>topics in your own mind when addressing others, and is not a consideration in
>the mind of anyone else.
>
>The rest of us already know why these topics are always on your mind, now it's
>just a matter of you trying to figure it out.
>
>
>What a sad little closet-case that you are. Overtly obvious, but sad. You so
>desperately keep trolling for masculine involvement on the internet but it'll
>never fill that gaping closet-case hole of yours.
I've never been in the closet, being perfectly at ease with my
sexuality, my great raging repressed Queen friend. Why don't you drop me
a line and come to see me? I'm sure we'll find something more
interesting to do than fiddle with exposures, unless that's what you'd
like, of course.
Kissy, kissy.
As ever, yours,
Barack O'Bugger