500D and 70-200 For Macro

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag meaning
I will always have it with me.

The other option is using Kenko extension tubes on my 50mm lens, whereby
using the 36 and 12 extension tubes will effectively make it just under life
size, but is maybe not as flexible and will suffer from more light loss than
the 500D.

I know the 500D is no replacement for a proper macro lens, but anyone have
any experience using a 500D with a 70-200?

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:26:17 -0000, "Paul" wrote:

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag meaning
I will always have it with me.

Don't waste your time. The amount of aperture-stop needed for the right DOF, and
needing to use a flash at those limited light levels, will make your
macro-photography unnatural and useless and annoying, but for the most
self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.

"anthony_grimmens" wrote in message
...

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
meaning
I will always have it with me.


Don't waste your time. The amount of aperture-stop needed for the right
DOF, and
needing to use a flash at those limited light levels, will make your
macro-photography unnatural and useless and annoying, but for the most
self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor
to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.


What P&S are you using?

"Paul" wrote:
"anthony_grimmens" wrote in message
.. .

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
I've

self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor
to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.


What P&S are you using?

Don't you recognize the troll with the extreme multiple personality
disorder?

jue

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:28:01 -0000, "Paul" wrote:

"anthony_grimmens" wrote in message
.. .

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
meaning
I will always have it with me.


Don't waste your time. The amount of aperture-stop needed for the right
DOF, and
needing to use a flash at those limited light levels, will make your
macro-photography unnatural and useless and annoying, but for the most
self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor
to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.


What P&S are you using?


You reveal your supreme ignorance. This is true of *ALL* P&S cameras.

Catch up.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:28:01 -0000, "Paul" wrote:

"anthony_grimmens" wrote in message
.. .

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
meaning
I will always have it with me.

I use the 500D on my 70-300mm and it works great. Very sharp, terrific
working distance for subjects like dragonflies. The 500D is small, a
lot cheaper than a macro lens, and there is no light loss such as you
get with extension tubes. (Plus you would need extension tubes as long
as your arm to be useful at 300mm.)

Archibald

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:53:07 GMT, Archibald wrote:

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:28:01 -0000, "Paul" wrote:

"anthony_grimmens" wrote in message
. ..

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
meaning
I will always have it with me.

I use the 500D on my 70-300mm and it works great. Very sharp, terrific
working distance for subjects like dragonflies. The 500D is small, a
lot cheaper than a macro lens, and there is no light loss such as you
get with extension tubes. (Plus you would need extension tubes as long
as your arm to be useful at 300mm.)

Archibald

Too bad that you'll never understand the pleasure of working with several
diopters of high-quality close-up lenses plus an excellent telextender on a P&S
camera. It gives you phoenomenal working distance, huge aperture, and great
magnification with a useful DOF. Taking tack-sharp hand-held photos of the heads
of dragonflies in flight with fast shutter speeds without the need of flash is
child's play.

Keep trying with your ancient dslr gear, maybe you'll figure it out one day.

That you bought the wrong kind of camera.

"LloydEvans" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:28:01 -0000, "Paul" wrote:

I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos
on
juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
I've
yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make
it
half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
meaning
I will always have it with me.


Don't waste your time. The amount of aperture-stop needed for the right
DOF, and
needing to use a flash at those limited light levels, will make your
macro-photography unnatural and useless and annoying, but for the most
self-deceived amateur. You'll need a good P&S camera with a small sensor
to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.


What P&S are you using?


You reveal your supreme ignorance. This is true of *ALL* P&S cameras.


Yes, but I'm interested in what P&S you use.

anthony_grimmens wrote:

You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.

That's perfectly correct.

anthony_grimmens wrote:

You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.

That's perfectly correct.