Comments on: Alternatives to Buying a Dedicated Macro Lens for your DSLR

By: CathyP

CathyP — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:19:40 +0000

Miriam, you didn’t make a mistake by purchasing a macro lens. I have one for my film SLR and love it. I just got a DSLR and am looking to get a macro lens.

I’m curious as to whether anyone has used a lensbaby. You can purchase a set of 2 macro filters to go with it. The whole thing would be about $300, close to the budget I have set for a macro lens.

Also, anyone have any suggestions as to whether or not to go with a telephoto macro lens as opposed to a straight macro? Also, what brands would you recommend. I’m not sure I’m prepared to spend over $700 for a 105 mm macro. Should I save my pennies until I can afford that? Thanks so much!

By: miriam

miriam — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:02:12 +0000

are you available to discuss using a macro lense. i just bought one and i’m afraid i made a mistake.

By: Ion Ditoiu

Ion Ditoiu — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:24:36 +0000

Ok, guys, so everybody knows all these alternatives to a real dedicated macro lens, MF or AF: reversed lenses, tubes (MF or AF), bellows, compact digicams, using regular taking lenses or, better, enlerging lenses. And there are zillions of sites describing one, two or all these alternatives. In (almost) all the above alternatives, there is always one or more challenges: narrow depth of field, short working distance and lack of AF.
But I’ve never read, heard or seen the best alternative of all: an enlarging lens (usually a Rodagon or a Schneider)
combined with “somethimg” that makes the entire rig to work AutoFocus, and to give you a very confortable working distance (somewhere between 18 and 25cm), a triple (yes, you read right: triple!) depth of field and a total price under $70.
Yeup,I did build such a rig and, believe me, it is better than any 100mm (90 or 105, or even a 150mm) AF dedicated lens under all these requirements: working distance, AF, price, depth of field and, possibly, resolution, since we’re talking a Rodagon 80mm f/4.
Try it, just try it hard, and you’ll see it…. It is true, it took to me almost one year of work with trials and errors, but finally, i did it.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:40:05 +0000

I have a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 lens that is called a macro lens. I know it isn’t a true macro, as the magnification is not 1:1, and it’s a zoom. But I really like it, and the minimum focusing distance is 0.65 ft. This is what I use for macro photography.

By: John

John — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:41:15 +0000

After pricing a macro lens for my D70, I decided to purchase another camera. No, not to replace my D70. I purchased a Nikon point’n’shoot camera that has macro capability. As an added benefit, it is small enough that I can take it on extended bike rides. It is now a few years old and I use it primarily for taking pictures of “white board” discussions at the conclusion of business meetings.

I also have some extension tubes and a reversal ring that I bought in 1970 for my Nikon FTN (A film camera… wow, 38 years ago and still works as good as ever… Somehow, I don’t think the D70 will hold value as well as an FTN). I haven’t used them yet, but have great plans…

By: Louella

Louella — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:41:40 +0000

I haven’t gotten it right with the reverse lens technique so far. Nevertheless, I’ve bookmarked this page as one of my favorites. I’ll keep trying. Thanks!

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:58:30 +0000

I’ve been having a lot of fun with my Nikon BR-2 reversal ring. Although a bit more difficult than a true macro lens, its a fun challenge!

By: Lisa's Chaos

Lisa's Chaos — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:50:51 +0000

I have the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM and LOVE LOVE LOVE it!Here are a couple of my recent favs. :) flower ornament

By: NikonnooB

NikonnooB — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:02:32 +0000

A true macro lens is always the preferred option (just as the best equipment is always the preferred choice), and I’m sure if everyone who wanted to merely experiment with macro could afford the financial output for a true macro lens, we’d all buy one.

The fact is, many of us are learning here, and trying out new things. These close up lenses allow a new user (or one who isn’t necessarily out to solely shoot macro) to work with up-close shots, getting a reasonable facsimile of a 1:1 or 2:1 shot, without us breaking the bank. When we finally fall in love with shooting close, we can go out and spend the big bucks.

Thank you for this article, and the ensuing replies. It’s good to see everyone’s viewpoints on this one.

By: Brian Auer

Brian Auer — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:42:25 +0000

I’m a real fan of the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. I’ve got the 105mm version from Sigma, and it’s become my favorite lens for all types of shooting. I actually rarely use it as a macro lens and it’s tack sharp and the bokeh is amazing for standard shooting — something you can’t get with extension tubes or close-up filters.

Those things are nice as a cheap alternative to a dedicated macro lens, but the downside to them is that you lose the ability to focus out to infinity with them attached. That’s why the dedicated macro is definitely worth the extra cash.