tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post7335040906190150304..comments2024-02-12T03:21:03.402-08:00Comments on Ron Martinsen's Photography Blog: Holiday Gift Guide for Canon Macro Photographers by Joseph Calevronmartblog.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-61346757287526792702011-12-03T07:34:06.133-08:002011-12-03T07:34:06.133-08:00Brilliant information to say the least. I use a 5D...Brilliant information to say the least. I use a 5DmkII and 7D for my day job so helpful to hear your thoughts. I simply love the quality of the shots taken with the Canon 65mm, that is one stunning lens, just don't think I can justify for now to possibly extension tubes are the way to go.<br /><br />Thanks again :)Mark - Devon Wedding Photographerhttp://www.marksmithphotography.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-3132341744464791462011-11-22T20:26:38.421-08:002011-11-22T20:26:38.421-08:00From Joe...
The main reasons I sold the 500D were...From Joe...<br /><br />The main reasons I sold the 500D were the following.<br />1) While it does cause some loss of light, more important is the loss in image quality. I wanted a solution that allowed macro without losing quality.<br />2) Even on a 100-400, the resulting magnification was more like .7x. When I bought a 1x macro it became less useful. Additionally, when I later moved to the 70-200/4 IS + MP-E 65 I no longer had room for the 100-400 in my bag – so the diopter was less useful.<br /><br />I actually bought the extension tubes after I had sold the diopter. I picked up extension tubes for use with my 300/4 IS and my TS-E 90 – both of which often need some ‘help’ with magnification. I still use them today for this purpose. I don’t mind the tubes as much because there is no loss in image quality.<br /><br />For a 70-200/4 IS I would recommend extension tubes. You won’t get a huge amount of magnification from this lens. Both the IS and non-IS versions are .21x so a 36mm extension tube will give you .39x. That will not allow you to photograph insects but is enough for most flowers. A diopter on this lens won’t give you much more (my guess is .4x - .5x) and you will have more light loss and image quality loss.<br /><br /> Thanks,<br /> ‘Joeronmartblog.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-27225180972436067502011-11-22T14:48:05.676-08:002011-11-22T14:48:05.676-08:00This is great information with excellent examples!...This is great information with excellent examples! Thank you! A little bit of information as to why you stopped using the Canon 500D Close-Up Lens and kept the extension tubes would be extremely useful. Doing some research myself, it's not clear if the Close-Up lens reduces the amount of light getting to the sensor/film, while it seems like the extension tubes reduces light by about 2 stops. This leaves me wondering what's the best option for my 70-200 f4 lens; if I had the f2.8 version there would be no question about using extension tubes or the Canon extender as you recommend. What's your recommendation for the 70-200 f4 L from Canon?Arturo Ortizhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/arturoortiz/noreply@blogger.com