Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Macro Lens Vs Extension Tubes.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chuckoir" data-source="post: 1303477" data-attributes="member: 215778"><p>Evening Gentlemen, </p><p></p><p>I require some advice, if I may?</p><p></p><p>As my love for photography has developed, I've found that my desires for trying something new have grown, and I really want to get involved with macro photography.</p><p></p><p>I know that I've named this thread 'Macro Lens Vs Extension Tubes.', but I know full well that tubes can't replace having a bonafide macro lens... However, is it a suitable replacement? I've told the bird that, if she's feeling generous, she could do a lot worse than to get me the Tamron 90mm macro lens for Christmas. Me being me though, I'm itching to give it a go now and I'm wondering if I'm better off just getting some tubes and playing about with those instead? If they do the job? </p><p></p><p>I've currently got a Nikon 18-200mm, and a 50mm f/ 1.8 prime lens. Would attaching tubes to these work?</p><p></p><p>I've found some Kenko tubes for a reasonable £79, and I'm half tempted... Mainly because it's not £350 (which is what the Tamron lens costs), and I would have them now instead of waiting for Xmas. <img src="/mac_images/images/smilies/Undecided.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":\" title="Undecided :\" data-shortname=":\" /></p><p></p><p>Any thoughts? All I want to do is take pictures of spiders! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chuckoir, post: 1303477, member: 215778"] Evening Gentlemen, I require some advice, if I may? As my love for photography has developed, I've found that my desires for trying something new have grown, and I really want to get involved with macro photography. I know that I've named this thread 'Macro Lens Vs Extension Tubes.', but I know full well that tubes can't replace having a bonafide macro lens... However, is it a suitable replacement? I've told the bird that, if she's feeling generous, she could do a lot worse than to get me the Tamron 90mm macro lens for Christmas. Me being me though, I'm itching to give it a go now and I'm wondering if I'm better off just getting some tubes and playing about with those instead? If they do the job? I've currently got a Nikon 18-200mm, and a 50mm f/ 1.8 prime lens. Would attaching tubes to these work? I've found some Kenko tubes for a reasonable £79, and I'm half tempted... Mainly because it's not £350 (which is what the Tamron lens costs), and I would have them now instead of waiting for Xmas. :\ Any thoughts? All I want to do is take pictures of spiders! ;) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Name this item. 🍎
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Macro Lens Vs Extension Tubes.
Top