One used 100-300 ----$100
One 58 to 72 step up ring --$ 5
One 72 to 77 step up ring --$ 8
One 500D 77mm ---- $ 180
One home made diffuser for built in flash.
I think I'm going to take your suggestions to heart and get a similar setup to use with my Sigma 70-300. I can get a 500D and two generic step up rings for less than $180. Since I don't know how often I will take macros I would rather spend my $$ towards a good telephoto for wildlife shots. And of course, the 500D will come in handy on that and even a dedicated macro later on if I wish.
Hopefully I can get them before the wildflower shoot on the 2nd (if I can make it out).
Amazing shots Tom - especially with the setup you have. So what really is the difference beween this setup and the macro. I see more magnification here compared to a real macro lens ( what I understand from reading about the 100mm macro canon offers).
If the 100mm is 1:1 ratio of magnification, can shots like these be achieved with the macro lens as well. Is there really any advantage to spending the $500 and getting a macro lens.
What was your working distance for these pictures.
For shots like these on the 100 2.8 USM macro, does anyone know what the working distance would be.
pascal03 wrote:
Amazing shots Tom - especially with the setup you have. So what really is the difference beween this setup and the macro. I see more magnification here compared to a real macro lens ( what I understand from reading about the 100mm macro canon offers).
If the 100mm is 1:1 ratio of magnification, can shots like these be achieved with the macro lens as well. Is there really any advantage to spending the $500 and getting a macro lens.
What was your working distance for these pictures.
For shots like these on the 100 2.8 USM macro, does anyone know what the working distance would be.
Pascal, the dedicated macro lens at 1to1 still has greater magnification that the 100-300 at 300 with the 500D . Below you will find two pics one with the 100-300 and the other with the 180 . the 180 shot is not at its closest focusing dist . it can give you greater mag, than this . but it will give you and idea of the two different set ups, It's much nicer to see the whole damsel as it is just the head and a little of the body.
The advantage in this case of the 100-300 is you have 16" or so of working distance , where with the 100macro you may be 6" away. believe me 10 " is a big distance when chasing bugs. My personal feelings are more distance is better when doing bugs .
tchotchke wrote:
I've been thinking of selling my sigma 100-300mm to put towards a 70-200F4 L. Can i do macro with the 70-200 as well? What are some options with it?
Yes macro can be done with any lens , with the right attachments.
Great photos Tom, gives a great alterate. Your photos made me think what kind of results a 250D would give. It will surely give you the option of getting closer and give you greater magnification. However, is it at the cost of image quality?... and is that substantially noticable?
Can we think this way... if we are very concerned about image quality then we would probably be doing a close up (assuming not using a dedicated macro) with 70-200 L lenses and attaching a 500D. However, if we are flexible on he quality part then we can make a cheaper option of 100-300 or 70-300 with 250D?
someet wrote:
Great photos Tom, gives a great alterate. Your photos made me think what kind of results a 250D would give. It will surely give you the option of getting closer and give you greater magnification. However, is it at the cost of image quality?... and is that substantially noticable?
Can we think this way... if we are very concerned about image quality then we would probably be doing a close up (assuming not using a dedicated macro) with 70-200 L lenses and attaching a 500D. However, if we are flexible on he quality part then we can make a cheaper option of 100-300 or 70-300 with 250D?...Show more →
Someet, from everything I have read, the 500 and 250D are of such high quality that there is no loss of image quality by using them , the loss would be more from the lens you use . there is also no light loss from using them.
The 250 would give you a working distance of around 10" as opposed to the 18 or so with the 500.
Just want to double check with you. Am I correct in assuming that we can always decrease the magnification by moving farther away... can we still focus?
Assuming we use the tele end: 300mm, the 250D would give a 1.2X magnification at a working distance of about 250mm (9.8 inches) and a 500D would give a 0.6X magnification at a working distance of about 500mm (19.6 inches). Now, while using 250D, we might be able to move away to increase the working distance and get a lower maginification which MIGHT be comparable to 500D? Ofcourse, what we need to compare is at what working distance while using the 250D we get the maximum magnification of 500D (0.6X)... is it 12 inches or say 17 inches (comparable to that of 500D). My guess would be somewhere in between... but it would be nice to have the number!
Just a thought since many consumer telezooms have 58mm filter size. This gives an additional option of using 250D as against just having the 500D available for the 70-200 f4s and f2.8s
