> > What are the pros and cons regarding those two approaches? Canon versus
> 3rd party?
The Kenko extension tube set is just as good as the
Canon one, but it is less expensive. No optical
elements to worry about.
Using an extension tube will case the lens to work
in a range for which it was not designed for which
causes softer than usual images. Still, extension
tubes can be useful even with good quality zoom
lenses, e.g. the 70-200 2.8L (very bad example,
because the internal focussing gets all messed up -
I often end up focussing with the focal length ring).
Closeup lenses add extra glass to the setup, and
usually aren't very well corrected, especially
single lens designs. The Canon 500"D" I think is a
two element design, and maintains quality better.
> There is a third option - it is called a Teleconverter.
A 2X converter doesn't allow closer focus. It magnifies
everything - including softness in the lens, it also
adds additional glass to the setup, and it cuts down
the light by two stops.
A true macro lens is designed for close focus, but e.g.
the 100/2.8 will also work well as a general use lens for
portraits etc.
Lars
--
Lars Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
87GT http://www.larsmichael.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
