Ok, reading the title all of you probably rolled your eyes and expected to be able to direct me to the search page. I've researched this for hours and have found little.

I'd love a 100 2.8 Macro USM... I can't afford it. Plus I'm not sure how much I'd use it as a macro so I might consider getting the fast 100 2.0. In the meantime, a close-up lens will do, and it will let me know if I truly would enjoy macro. I have a 70-210 3.5-4.5. For 70-200 zooms, all recommend the 500D. I'm curious, since it is a zoom, why not just get the 250D and just go down to 70 when you want less magnification?


Bob Atkins' handy page shows:

EF70-210/3.5-4.5 USM will have magnification 0.34~0.29 (at 70mm) and 0.85~0.83 (at 210mm) with the 250D.

That'd be 0.20~0.14 (at 70mm) and 0.51~0.41 (at 210mm) with the 500D.



This is for film, by the way.
So maybe I don't understand those numbers, but the magnification of the 250D just seems to be more useful. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Adam

The way Canon puts it via B&H:

"The 250D is suited for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 30 to 135mm. The 500D and 500 are geared for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 70 to 300mm."

You are looking for 70-210 so 500D for you. If you use the 250D for this range, more than likely you will get get motion blur just from breathing and a DOF two hairs thin.

Try making a reverse lens macro if you want to save money.

http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm

Adam the best place to find macro info is at the Macro world resource section at the top of the macro forum page,

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm

I have read up on all that information before. It doesn't deal with what I'm asking. I am looking for a 250D or 500D. I am curious, why not use the 250D? I am fully aware which one Canon recommends. the 70-210 zoom has a significant amount under 135mm, and some over. It still will work.

The reversed 50 is too limiting. The 250D is too powerful you are saying, even at 70mm though? That doesn't seem to make sense with the numbers I posted. Does the 250D actually cause shorter DOF then?

But, does the 500D truly get close enough to enjoy as a macro? I don't think people understand what I'm asking... I'd better just buy the 500D and hope it is what I am looking for and truly gets as close as I wish.

Perhaps I don't understand your question, but I've used the 250D in the range 35 to 135 and it is just fine. However, the higher the magnification, the shorter the DOF, and the higher the magnification the more difficult it is to focus and deal with anything that moves, or if the camera vibrates even so slightly. I don't know what happens with the 250D above 135, but it could get into lens set incompatibilities resulting in distortion and/or aberrations.

Coincidently, yesterday I ordered a 500D to use up to 300 on Canon's recommendation, but I have no doubt about the combatibility in the specified range. In essence, and which can be confusing, the 250D is stronger than the 500D, however each used within their specified range will work out to approximately the same total magnification.

With your 70-210, the 250D will give you an effective range of 65mm at the upper end wich is already getting fiddly, whereas the 500D will give you your full 70-210 usable range.

It sounds like you are hoping to squeeze more out of your 70-210 with the 250D, but in practice I think you will only be losing the low end and above 135 will be unusable, leaving you a narrow middle that will frustrate the hell out of you when a bug moves, a tiny breeze moves a flower or you forgot to lock the mirror up.

250D @ approx 135mm




Trying too hard, thin DOF, hand held.

Go over to the macro section or search for 500D. There was a thread going a few weeks ago about the 70-200 with a 500D. They looked pretty good to me.

- Scott