On 3/22/2014 4:13 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I am truly not a macro guy.
These seem like a decent start.
> I've owned those tubes for about 6 months or more. This was the first time
> I've ever used them.
Any particular reason why you didn't use the macro setting on the lens? By
already being corrected for close focus, it
might deliver better results with the tubes than the normal setting.
> I get extremely
> frustrated when the only way to change the focus distance is to crawl on
> my belly 6" forward or back. :-)
Oly has an answer to that, the 60/2.8 macro lens - which is why I'll not be
answering my own question above. It's a
truly excellent macro lens with better working distance than the 12-50 with
tubes. Focuses directly to what would be 2:1
(2x) on FF.
> But Dean manages to defeat some of those problems by using his 100(?)-300
> Tamron zoom
60-300, and a great lens.
> mounted on the Oly Telescopic auto tube
> <http://olympus.dementix.org/eSIF/om-sif/macrophotogroup/auto_tube_65-116.htm>
> which you can see here
Exactly why I sometimes use the 65-300 with extension tubes. No crawling on
one's belly and the great working distance
tends to scare the subjects less. Less often, though, now that I have the
60/2.8.
Macro Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|