Extension Tubes or Macro Lens?

[venchka]

Economy: Tubes.
In a perfect world: 105mm Micro-Nikkor.
Folks have been making tubes and or bellows work since forever. They work with smaller lens and disappear in your bag when not needed. Modern macro lenses are larger and heavier all the time.

Ps: if you get to Houston to try Tony's gear, you are welcome to use any of my close focusing hardware.

[TheFantasticG]

Originally Posted by scottbuckel

The Canon series have more diameters and are called 250D and 500D. I still carry around these close up filters. The nice thing about these are they cost about $50, as I remember.

They cost much more than $50, and hardly in stock anywhere... at least, no where online in the past six months (new).

D7000 and D700? You might just want to consider the Sigma 150mm 2.8 EX, yes the current model. The D7k loves Sigma macro glass. Much more than the D90 did. I just got the Sigma 1.4x TC and it works damn near flawlessly with the Sigma 150. On the D700 that'd be 210mm worth of range. It's 336mm (I think) on the D7k. I have come to really like using the Sigma 150 with the Siggy 1.4x TC with a Kenko 12mm tube on my D7k. I really like the working distance. The IQ this combo puts out is great. You can get a used Sigma 150 2.8 EX in EX+ condition for around $600 or so, give or take. (You never did mention how small the budget was.)

[jfoureyes]

I've been fiddling around with macro photography since 1995. Here's a link that will answers a lot of your questions. Macro FAQs....I always post this link for anyone interested in macro photography. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask and I'll try to help.

[Redneck]

Thank you guys, your help and offers are much appreciated.

[DougC]

Originally Posted by jfoureyes

I've been fiddling around with macro photography since 1995. Here's a link that will answers a lot of your questions. Macro FAQs....I always post this link for anyone interested in macro photography. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask and I'll try to help.

This guy knows what he's talking about!

[scottbuckel]

I agree Jim (Foureyes) does know a lot about macro.

Jim - thanks for posting that link it was really good.

Garrett - You made me realize how long ago I purchased the diopters from Nikon and Canon. I think gasoline was about a dollar a gallon when I purchased them!

Scott

[Cope]

A set of Kenko tubes will run at least $100 on eBay, and quite a bit more from B&H or such. I would put a little more with that and just get a macro lens.

[jfoureyes]

I've been thinking about this thread and figured I'd add something to it other than the link I posted earlier. One thing to consider is the subjects you are going to work on... you may be able to work with just tubes with your 70-200 depending on the magnification you want to get and if you're going for shy subjects it is also a nice way to have plenty of working distance. I use several setups in the field... I have a 105 and 180 macro lens when doing 1:1 or very close to 1:1 and a 75-300 with 25 mm tube for really shy critters and the working distance is 4 feet. This is my main butterfly and dragonfly setup. You can also use it for flowers and plants when you don't want to work on them at 1:1. For damselflies, small spiders and other tiny critter's I like to use the 105 and really like the 180 for extra working distance at 1:1. Don't be afraid of the third party macro lenses they are all excellent when used properly. I don't know anything about flash setups...I'm a tripod user and love to work in natural light.

And thanks Doug and Scott for the kind comments...

[DougC]

Just saw this this morning:

A new AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens announced today! | NikonPlanet.com

[TheFantasticG]

Uh, I don't believe I have heard anyone anywhere or read on any forum or blog or website ever wanting a wider-than-the 60mm 2.8G macro. This is a surprise. Not interested, though. I hardly see you getting close enough to many insects with that short of a focal length.

[DougC]

Insect aren't the only photographic subjects out there, but it's good to know you aren't interested.

[jfoureyes]

The truth is that bugs are the central interest for the majority of macro shooter's and I'm really not sure why... could be the unseen details that you can't see with your eyes without magnification and the challenge of trying to capture it with a camera and lens in a natural environment. It's very much like bird and wildlife photography, but the subjects are a lot smaller. If you visit any macro forum on the web you'll see more bugs than any other type of subject. I actually got into macro photography to shoot wildflowers up close and bugs just kind of worked their way into it. It's actually very rewarding when you get one right which is far and few between all the failures I have but I think that's what keeps me going back to try again...besides it gets me out in the woods for a little while to enjoy nature and that's actually what I love the most.

[DougC]

JIm,

I agree completely but it bothers me when one doesn't look outside the box and realize that just because a piece of equipment doesn't fit their particular need they become "less than positive" about it. I guess I'm just the eternal optimist...

Granted, the 40mm focal length breaks from tradition (as did the 85mm) but I am sure Nikon has their reasons, most likely selling price. I have lived long enough to build a nice collection of pro level lenses but I won't dismiss a consumer lens simply because it's cheaper. Good examples are the old 28-105 AF as well as the current 18-70 and 18-55. The latter is DIRT cheap but produces unbelievably good images for a $100.00 kit lens. The other two are well known for excellent IQ at a modest price.