Fortkentdad
Senior Member
I suppose some would say that it is silly to think about adding a teleconverter aka TC to a lens designed as a walk about to save you the trouble of swapping lenses. And the lens I have claims to be a macro so why an extension tube? Well I have TC's and I have ET's and I even have a snap on the front of your lens Raynox 250 magnifier, and some time, so lets just see what happens.
First off the T.C. - yes it worked, and worked OK. The TC used was the Kenko Pro 300 - 1.4.
A shot of the single bullrush sticking out of my frozen solid goldfish pond.
The EXIF should tell you which is which.
(first no TC, Second with 1.4)
Also shot a few sparrows in a cedar bush.
TC and then ........... No TC
Sure it costs a stop (1.4x) but gets you 40% closer. .... would I likely use it? Maybe - but probably not. but good to know it will work if you need to get a little bit closer..... (come on hum it with me ...)
---------------
And as for E.T.'s and that RayNox Snap-on magnifier
They both nullified the autofocus - but hey it is macro shooting should be done manual focus anyway eh?
The Extension tubes (used the 12mm and 20mm - not stacked) were challenging as you had to get extremely close to the subject.
+
The Raynox was easier to use as you didn't have to be just a couple of centimeters away from the subject (more like a decimeter or so - 3" for those in the the old system). Getting that close makes it tricky for lighting.
BUT the Raynox doe create the dark circle - I suppose one could pretend it is intended as a magnifying glass effect.
So they work ...
But the lens does an pretty good job of extreme close up (and AF works) and unless you need that extra magnification I wouldn't bother. If you do, use a real macro lens. If you only have this one lens and have the E.T. or snap -on magnifying filters why not use them.
Here is 'Super-Siggy' version of a macro shot unaided.
I'm sure in the right hands these tools may return different results but for me, I don't see the advantage to the macro aids while the TC has some benefit but may not be worth the bother to get that extra 100mm in reach?
First off the T.C. - yes it worked, and worked OK. The TC used was the Kenko Pro 300 - 1.4.
A shot of the single bullrush sticking out of my frozen solid goldfish pond.
The EXIF should tell you which is which.
(first no TC, Second with 1.4)
Also shot a few sparrows in a cedar bush.
TC and then ........... No TC
Sure it costs a stop (1.4x) but gets you 40% closer. .... would I likely use it? Maybe - but probably not. but good to know it will work if you need to get a little bit closer..... (come on hum it with me ...)
---------------
And as for E.T.'s and that RayNox Snap-on magnifier
They both nullified the autofocus - but hey it is macro shooting should be done manual focus anyway eh?
The Extension tubes (used the 12mm and 20mm - not stacked) were challenging as you had to get extremely close to the subject.
+
The Raynox was easier to use as you didn't have to be just a couple of centimeters away from the subject (more like a decimeter or so - 3" for those in the the old system). Getting that close makes it tricky for lighting.
BUT the Raynox doe create the dark circle - I suppose one could pretend it is intended as a magnifying glass effect.
So they work ...
But the lens does an pretty good job of extreme close up (and AF works) and unless you need that extra magnification I wouldn't bother. If you do, use a real macro lens. If you only have this one lens and have the E.T. or snap -on magnifying filters why not use them.
Here is 'Super-Siggy' version of a macro shot unaided.
I'm sure in the right hands these tools may return different results but for me, I don't see the advantage to the macro aids while the TC has some benefit but may not be worth the bother to get that extra 100mm in reach?