I particularly
> like the Top 10 myths of photography page
> (http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brontenmyths.html). I don't agree
with all
> the stuff he writes (eg. Diopter Lenses are not inferior to
extension tubes
> or macro lenses), but he has made me stop & think about things once
in
> awhile. His site is well worth a look.
> - Stuart
I would not go that far: he is entitled to his opinion on that.
>From my experiences of macro, it does not work like that: I have
tried both: I don't spend much time photographing graph paper or ICs
either.
One huge factor (for me) is that the "diopters" in essence give you a
wider angle lens making it much harder to isolate the subject: with
the difficulty of assesing DOF previews in macro due to light levels
through viewfinder that is compounded. Macro lenses on tubes retain
the same working distance (lens to subject) regardless [ strictly
predicted by magnification ]. No where is flare mentioned: the last
place I want any more glass is out beyond the filter ring (unless it
is hooded/reducing working distance even more) ... and of course, on
top of the polariser.
But if people buy in to what he says, and we all like a turn around,
its fine by me: caveat emptor.
Anything below a "the nikkor closeup #0 lens is a very good one
(somewhat pricey, being Nikon), two element achromatic lens", IE the
ones people normally get palmed off with in a camera store to go with
the Sigma zoom, really will not support his statement. The
high-quality Canon supplementary lenses, are not a cheap alternative
to extension tubes.
Life would be no fun without disagreements ;o)
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
