|11-13-2012 06:03 AM|
Well, I actually did end up getting a diopter. Although I can auto focus from within 4" from the subject, the images captured at that distance all came out blurry for some reasons. I guess this is what is called narrow depth of field? But, at about 8" from the subject, I could get some OK shots. The macro is quite as "macro", but is doable for me. Here's a few samples.
No flash on the first shot and built in flash on the second shot. Still difficult to get a good shot as lighting is still a challenge since I am not using an off body flash. So, I can't capture any fish as they are always moving, and I can't speed up the shutter speed as the pic will under expose.
The diopter I got is a B+W 77mm +5.
BTW, these are Nick's famous shrimps.
|11-08-2012 11:31 PM|
|etane||Just reporting back about the Kiron lens. Well, so I learned that I shouldn't get a macro lens with a wide angle. I thought I could be within a foot of the subject with any macro lens, but, with this one, I could do that only when in wide angle. Once in tele, I have to move farther away. The lens itself is a keeper for casual photos as I do not have a tele lens. 99.9% of the time, the 17-55mm suits me fine.|
|11-02-2012 02:21 AM|
|GraphicGr8s||Nubster, they don't. Neither do focusing bellows or deglassed teleconverters. I'll give TME the benefit of the doubt.|
|11-02-2012 01:30 AM|
I use tubes all the time.
Quality seems fine.
|11-02-2012 01:22 AM|
This shot was taken with a reversing ring and a pretty shoddy setup overall...
How do tubes produce terrible quality when all they are is a hollow tube?
|10-30-2012 06:59 PM|
I won a bid on fleabay for a Kiron 28-105mm f3.2-4.5. Will report back after I receive it. Got it for dirt cheap, $11 plus ship. Reviews for this lens is great. Kiron is the OEM for Nikon E-series lens.
If this one doesn't work out, I think I will get a Rokinon 85mm f1.4. Reviews are awesome and can use it for night photography with the f1.8. Not sure how well it handles night photography in the sense that this is a manual focus only lens. Plus, I'd prefer to have a zoom for indoor shooting since space to move around is more limited.
|10-27-2012 08:04 PM|
|Nubster||You can get a Tamron 90mm macro for $300ish and they are pretty well regarded. That's what I use and its a really good lens.|
|10-27-2012 08:51 AM|
The only thing you can get cheap is an extension tube or reversing ring. Both offer terrible quality. Photography is very much an expensive hobby, there is no cheap method that offers great results :/
|10-27-2012 07:14 AM|
|etane||So, I think I solved my original question and a diopter is not what I am looking for. What I want is something that extends the zoom range on my 17-55mm lens, and that something is a teleconverter. Now, I know what you guys are thinking that this is probably an even worse option than a diopter or extension tube. But, functionally, it's what I was looking for instead of a diopter.|
|10-27-2012 04:56 AM|
|10-27-2012 04:53 AM|
|10-27-2012 04:48 AM|
The 17-55 has a 1:5 reproduction ratio. The lower the second number (or the closer the second number is to 1), the bigger the subject will appear.
For example, a lens with a close focus of 2.25' but a reproduction ratio of 1:2 will magnify the subject/make the subject appear larger than a lens with a 1.25' close focus but a reproduction ratio of 1:5....
|10-27-2012 02:13 AM|
|10-27-2012 01:44 AM|
|dmagerl||I have a 100mm macro lens. I use it everywhere. You can just think of it as a 100mm lens that happens to close focus.|
|10-27-2012 01:06 AM|
And, speaking of kicking myself, I've learned that when entering a hobby to not buy the beginner set as I will outgrow it quickly. So, part of me wants to overkill on the lens, so I never want to upgrade again. I am just questioning how often will I use a macro lens because if I get one then it will be used only for the tank.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|