Ian

what macro lens are you considering? I have both tubes and diopters and use
both dependant on the circumstances. However, I am about the buy the Tamron
90mm Macro for sheer round versatility and quality. I have read nothing but
good reports on this lens. In Oz it retails for around $620 while the tubes
(one of each) would be around $400 if I stick with the Canon set. Its the
low light capacity and quality of image that makes the Tamron stand out for
the bucks when comparing with others that I have looked at. I look forward
to your views.

regards

Don from Down Under.


"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article MFkzf.375200$ki.357027@pd7tw2no, default
writes

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
default wrote:

The price is similiar both ways.

Depends on what lens is in front of the tube. Some work great, some not
so
great.

What are the trade-offs?

It depends on which diopter. The really good 2 element diopters can work
really good and you don't lose light like you do with a tube. Also a
zoom
can be used to control image magnification with a diopter which is nice.
They seem to work well with tele lenses which gives you more camera to
subject distance.

Can you take your camera and lens to a store and try both out and buy
which
works best (that's what I did)? If you're trying to "shop on line" to
save
money, hard to say which would produce better results for your use.

Thanks Stacey.

I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55
and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without
filters.
So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't
noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and
sharp.

However diopter filters seem to be somewhat maligned in these newsgroups
and
some photography websites. I was wondering if I would have been better
off
getting EF12-II or EF25-II extension tubes instead which I could still do.
Does the larger image circle produced from standing the lens off the
camera
cause problematic reflections inside the camera? Especially for the
70-300
which is designed for full frame cameras I would be concerned.

Buying a dedicated macro lense is a bit out of my budget presently but it
is
quite fun to see the microscopic details in items that you don't normally
see so close and not just for flowers and bugs. There are some very cool
photos possible from being so close to things.

My plan is to get a macro lens since it is only about twice the price of a
pair of Canon tubes, and focuses from 20cm (~1:1) to infinity so it can be
kept on the camera when walking about in the field. I have used tubes for
still life on a table where illumination and set up time (selecting the
appropriate combination of tubes for the field of view) is not a problem,
but want to move on from that.
--
Ian G8ILZ