500d Close up lens - comments please

[Spooky]

Hello all

I was looking at getting a macro lens for my trip, however weight and space is at a premium so I am willing to compromise a little. The subject I am likely to focus on in the smaller end are butterflies and flowers. I can't see myself chasing ants or ultra tiny flowers.

Given the above needs I am seeking advice as to whether I could get away with the Canon 500D close focus lens attached to my 70-200VR. This would give me some "macro" ability at a fairly small cost and light weight.

If the 500D is recommended are there any Aussie suppliers?

From my search on the net thus far looks like I would have to buy it in the states.

Thanks for any input.

[huynhie]

I used to use it until I bought a nikkor 55mm micro.

Bought mine at Teds in Pitt Street Sydney approximately 3 years ago for 3 times the price of the micro.

[birddog114]

Buy a proper macro lens and never regret!

[marc]

Is avail here from Ebay (via HK):

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/New-Canon-77mm-7 ... dZViewItem

If that's any help?

[daniel_r]

Spooky, forum member Kerry Pierce has some notable efforts such as these macro images with the Canon 500D attached to the Nikon 80-400VR.

A couple of other members also have the 500D close-uo diopter from memory. I've been tossing up about buying it or a dedicated macro like the 90mm Tamron or 105mm Nikon - but thankfully don't have enough funds to satisfy the lust right now

[huynhie]

Spooky, forum member Kerry Pierce has some notable efforst such asthese macro images with the Canon 500D attached to the Nikon 80-400VR.

A couple of other members also have the 500D close-uo diopter from memory. I've been tossing up about buying it or a dedicated macro like the 90mm Tamron or 105mm Nikon - but thankfully don't have enough funds to satisfy the lust right now

Daniel, do what Thanh has mentioned above. You can pick up a cheap menual focus Nikkor and get better results.

[daniel_r]

Daniel, do what Thanh has mentioned above. You can pick up a cheap menual focus Nikkor and get better results.

After using MHD's Nikkor 105mm 2.8 at the last CBR minimeet, I've been thinking in the world of macro, coming up with a never ending list of shooting ideas! (probably because I don't have the lens... then once I get one I'll be all brain dead for ideas )

Too much lust! ( 17-35/2.8?, maybe a 85/1.4?, 105/2.8 Micro? 10-20 Stigma? 10.5 FE?) argh!

[Spooky]

I am inclined to agree with the assessment that a macro lens would give better results. However the amount I would use macro makes me think I wouldn't lug one around that often. Better to have the close up filter in the bag that way it will be there when I need it atleast.

Would like to hear from those using the 500D just to confirm I can get reasonable results going down this path. The cost is under $200 and the weight is less than a third of a macro lens.

[Oneputt]

Spooky I recently sold one to Sheila Smart, it might pay to PM her.

[hedge]

Spooky, i'm not 100% sure of their use but maybe extension tubes that fit between the lens and the body might be worth looking at also? Or just some +1,+2 etc closeup filters? I have one of them and it does a workable job.

[Mj]

Spooky... I have a nikon 6T... a diopter like the 500D.
Hard to get either in Oz but if you choice to go that way, get the 77mm 500D... more expensive but the size provides better usage than the 6T... get one from HK... last time I price checked I decided that a cheap dedicated macro or tubes were the better buy.

Also consider extension tubes and reveral rings... however if your planning on using with the 70-200 then the diopter is probably easiest option though I think I'd get more use out of the tubes.

Diopters are certainly lighter and smaller than a macro lens but will not give you the control you'd need for butterflys etc... flowers don't tend to move around much so their fine !!!

Do a search here... quite a few examples posted with diopters, macro lens and reversal rings.

[marc]

The cost is under $200 and the weight is less than a third of a macro lens.

This says it all. I have/use one on my 70-200 and not just when I travel.
Lugging my VR around o'seas is enough weight already
Will take it with me when I return to Africa next year

Cheers
Marc

[moz]

Like others, I'm not keen to carry an extra lens if I can avoid it. Although the 150/2.8 macro from Sigma is tempting, if Canon make a >150mm/2.8 macro I'll possibly buy it, but 100mm is just too short for me and the 180/3.5 is too slow for general use.

I have a 500D as well as a set of Kenko tubes, and use the 500D quite a lot more often. Tubes cost a lot more light than the lens, and the lens is easier to get on and off. I'm happy with image quality, to the point where I use that plus a 1.4x TC from time to time. My lizard avatar was shot just with a 2x TC on the 70-200IS, because with a minimum focus distance of 1.4m on a 400m lens I can get quite good magnification (about 7cm diagonally IIRC).

[marc]

Moz

You won't be sorry if you get the Sigma 150 f/2.8. Apart from being slightly
down on build quality it is every bit as good as the Nikon & Canon macros. IMHO

Cheers
Marc

[bloop]

I have a Canon 250D which I use with the 50/1.8. It seems to work well enough, no interesting subjects, so here's a Nutri-Grain, 100% Crop