Hi! Thanks for you replies. My understanding would be that 1. Anything but the proper macro lens is of less than perfect quality. Being satisfied with results that I get from SMC FA 50/1.7 with macro converter makes me think that I can accept certain quality loss resulting from use of optical attachments. 2. There're good and bad close up filters (lens attachments). Good are made by N-n or C-n and usually they are two piece lenses. I will have to wait and see what kind of price and manufacturer my local shop proposes.
I have to mention it explicitly. At the moment I intend to shoot macro handheld. So such thing as weight of the whole installment is important. I have a question that still remains unanswered. Is it a good idea to have all filters (or most filters) fit the (e.g.) Cokin filter bracket, say for 58 mm and then use all kinds of matching rings for other lenses. Or it would be a much better idea to have dedicated filter set per lens diameter... I have one more kind of sub-question. Several people mentioned 100/3.5 macro lens that with provided attachment goes to 1:1. Such lenses AFAIK are made by Vivitar and Pentax, and probably others. How good such lens for portrait work? Is there anyone here who switched to Pentax 100/2.8 known to be great (yet expensive) and why? Is there anyone using both lenses? Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
