3 replies to this topic

[craigbuckley]

If you needed to start shooting quality macro footage for a short film, which would you choose...

 

1. Hoya or Marumi macro lens filter ($50)

2. Extension tube from amazon ($10)

3. Tamron SP 2.5 macro lens ($200) (or something of this quality.. budget is $200 max.)

 

I know the tamron would be the best choice out those but is it worth trying or using the macro filters or extension tubes? If so, can you recommend a good brand and/or method?

 

Thanks for the help.

[yellow]

I wouldn't bother with the lens filter although the Raynox gets good reviews.

I'd buy a set of 3 manual extension tubes by Kenko or similar and a reversing ring which isn't on your list. If you're then not happy with the 'quality' from the cheap options then you know the lens is really your only option.

Extension tubes will reduce light and can make it harder to focus, reversing ring does just that, so you can mount a suitable lens like 135mm wrong way round.

A close focus rail is also a useful addition as focusing should be done manually, stacked even for photos and a sturdy tripod, wireless remote etc.

[Bioskop.Inc]

Extension tubes are great, but if you have a close focusing lens & some diopters you can obtain similar results or a combination of all 3.

[craigbuckley]

I ordered some fotodiox extension tubes from amazon for my gh2. Unfortunately, they won't be here for a couple weeks and I need to start shooting macro footage this week. So I will wait until those come but for now...

 

I looked into your recommendation and researched the Raynox DCR250. Its in my price range and has got great reviews, besides the shallow DOF,  but before I order one, I was wondering if anyone has used one or can recommend a better method.

 

You can get macro filters on amazon for $10 bucks- I have a feeling they wont be quality. The raynox is around $90, so is it worth it to spend the extra $80 bucks on the raynox 250? Or do I just get the cheap macro filters to hold me off until the extension tubes come in?

 

And last but not least, should I just spend the extra $100 dollars on top and get a macro lens like the tamron sp 2.5 or the sigma super wide II (something in that range)? Is the quality that much better with a $200 macro lens compared to the raynox? ( I can't afford an expensive macro lens)... And if so, which  macro lens is the best bang for the buck?

 

Thanks a lot everyone.