[pres589]

I have the Canon 52mm thread add-on lens (cost me about $15 in a pawn shop) that will fit on the 77 Limited with a stepping ring. I use it on my 70 Limited, any 50s and, for an experiment occasionally, on my Tamron 52B.

How does this perform using the DA 70?

[UncleVanya]

How does this perform using the DA 70?

This is the HD DA 70 with the raynox dcr-250.


Generated by http://tools.sportscard.trade

[pres589]

That's pretty outstanding. Nice travel option vs. bringing a whole lens.

[UncleVanya]

That's pretty outstanding. Nice travel option vs. bringing a whole lens.

It is less convenient, the dedicated legs offers more flexible framing and magnification. However it is useful to bring the raynox if macro isn't the primary shooting planned. If you have several lenses and/or good zooms the raynox is a good option. I also have the Canon 500d and Nikon 6t and 5t as well.

DA* 200 with Canon 500D:

Generated by http://tools.sportscard.trade

[pres589]

I could see slipping in a macro filter when space is at a premium and macro shots aren't the main focus of the kit and have planned to do so if/when I take the film travel kit I've been slowly assembling. I assume my M 85 f2, stopped down to f8 or so, would perform decently (I know it's not amazing to start with) with a good macro filter hung out front for the random bug shot.

[gatorguy]

I could see slipping in a macro filter when space is at a premium and macro shots aren't the main focus of the kit and have planned to do so if/when I take the film travel kit I've been slowly assembling. I assume my M 85 f2, stopped down to f8 or so, would perform decently (I know it's not amazing to start with) with a good macro filter hung out front for the random bug shot.

Heck I've done "macro" insect shots with a *300, so yes if you have good technique there's a lot of lenses that could be put to the task even if you don't have what would be considered the "proper" one.

EDIT: Just noticed the proper EXIF data isn't attached. I'll find it and post the aperture/speed for reference but I do know that was shot with a DA*300.

[UncleVanya]

I could see slipping in a macro filter when space is at a premium and macro shots aren't the main focus of the kit and have planned to do so if/when I take the film travel kit I've been slowly assembling. I assume my M 85 f2, stopped down to f8 or so, would perform decently (I know it's not amazing to start with) with a good macro filter hung out front for the random bug shot.

The key is these macro filters do best with longer lenses. Tubes do best with shorter lenses. 85 can work, but longer is better. In a pinch short lens plus macro lens add on is better than nothing by leaps and bounds.

[gatorguy]

This is the HD DA 70 with the raynox dcr-250.

I don't remember if it was you or someone else who mentioned the Raynox to me a couple years ago before I bought a DFA100. From the images I've seen seems worthwhile for folks who don't typically do macro except on rare occasions. Good advice Uncle.

[Gary H Perth]

The key is these macro filters do best with longer lenses. Tubes do best with shorter lenses. 85 can work, but longer is better. In a pinch short lens plus macro lens add on is better than nothing by leaps and bounds.

I am travelling this week so I cannot find examples to post (I doubt that I have anything as good as Uncle Vanya has), but for an occasional macro, my 52mm Canon-branded macro filter will attach to a number of my lenses - any of my 50s, 70 Limited, A100, M135, M200, M80-200. Whatever is in my lens kit, I can find one that will work. No coupling issues, no loss of light, almost no weight, and usually works with auto-focus and auto-exposure just as a macro lens would. The only losses are a bit of creative control, and of course some image quality (but macro image quality depends on so many factors anyway). Yes it's a great alternative as a light accessory in a hiking kit or travel backpack.

[UncleVanya]

I am travelling this week so I cannot find examples to post (I doubt that I have anything as good as Uncle Vanya has), but for an occasional macro, my 52mm Canon-branded macro filter will attach to a number of my lenses - any of my 50s, 70 Limited, A100, M135, M200, M80-200. Whatever is in my lens kit, I can find one that will work. No coupling issues, no loss of light, almost no weight, and usually works with auto-focus and auto-exposure just as a macro lens would. The only losses are a bit of creative control, and of course some image quality (but macro image quality depends on so many factors anyway). Yes it's a great alternative as a light accessory in a hiking kit or travel backpack.

I totally agree. Packing the raynox into a bag is great insurance.

[akptc]

I really like the close-up lens idea, will definitely pack one of those.

The DA200 is 245 gram lighter than the 300 but at 825 grams, the 200 is already on the heavy side, so I think I'd still rather take the 300 and the TC, for the overall greater reach. The good news is that I've managed to convince the girlfriend to carry the DA300

I have to confess, tempted by my own research, I checked out the D3500 with its 18-55 kit lens and that kit is about as heavy as three Kit Kat bars.. yikes.

So, at the moment I am thinking 16-50 always on until it rains then 18-135. In decent weather, 15-31-77 depending on the subject. And the DA300+TC for the birds and such. Like Gary H Perth suggested, I will take this kit out on shorter trips locally and see how my back fares.

Thank you Everyone for your advice, I appreciate it very much.

[pres589]

What's the 16-50 get you that the 18-135 and 15 combo doesn't besides speed? Not sure what the 16-50 is really doing for you there.

DA 15, 18-135, and some fast 50 takes out the 31 and the 16-50 by my math. I can't comment on the DA 300 or TC as reach has never been my thing.

[akptc]

Well, it's my understanding that the 16-50 is not as weather sealed as the 18-135.. Also the 16-50 is F/2.8.. so the 18-135 (and high ISO) would only come out in bad weather.... But yes, it's an overlap.. I could do 15, 50/1.4, 18-135 and the 300+TC. With 18-135 mounted most of the time.. hmm... less is more ?

I may need to hire a local sherpa and a donkey to carry all the gear I want ...

[Sandy Hancock]

Well, it's my understanding that the 16-50 is not as weather sealed as the 18-135...

Incorrect. AW is a considerably higher level of weather sealing than WR.

[akptc]

Incorrect. AW is a considerably higher level of weather sealing than WR.

I had no idea.. thanks!