Is a telephoto lens with a close up filter (macro lens attached) better for macros?
Or a wide angle lens with a macro lens attached?
When do you decide which to use?
What are the differences when using a wide angle lens vs a telephoto lens with macro lens attached?
I have notice in my own experience, I prefer a telephoto lens with macro lens attached as it gives me more distance and more light on the subject, as oppose to using a wide angle lens.
When you say "with macro lens attached" I take it you mean something like a Raynox DCR-150/ 250. I have only ever used one successfully on my 150mm dedicated macro lens, I have attempted to use one on my 100-400 but didn't work so well(could have just been me though).
Never tried to use it on a wide angle as according to the online calculator it would provide barely any magnification, for example my 28-105mm works out at something like .4:1 @28mm and .8:1@105mm. As I have a dedicated macro which goes to 1:1 I didn't have much of a reason to try using the 28-105mm/ raynox. On the ExtremeMacro website they suggest longer lenses are more effective with a raynox too.
It might be worth having a read(if you haven't already) of some of their resources which I have found helpful in the past. Here's a link to the Raynox guide they have up. The calculator at the bottom of the page may answer some of your questions on the difference between using wide/ tele lenses and the relative working distances involved.
I've just picked up a set of 1x, 2x and 4x screw on diopters to test with my RF 100-400. The 1x and 2x give me a minimum focal distance of around 12" and a focus range of about the same.
At 400mm at minimum focus distance I seem to be getting close to 1:1. That seems like a pretty good working distance and magnification for bugs on stuff, but I have not had a chance to try it out in the field yet (too cold for the bugs for the last week here).
It depends on what your trying to shoot.
If your after bees butterflies and other flying things then a zoom lens where you stand back from the subject works well
Most small bugs (eg jumping spiders) need a 1->2 x magnification, perhaps even more depending on what your after. A true macro lens (with an optional raynox) is best for that and you can get close to the subject....
Then again some folks like a wide angle macro where they can get scenery into the frame too
Each can give good results
Jim
Yes exactly I mean something like a raynox.
Actually in my experience I found the best way to get it to work is to use continuous autofocus and to move around until you are able to achieve focus, you then know exactly where to stand and how far.
I've shot most of my life with a 50mm lens on my film camera.
About 8-years ago I picked up a Ricoh GR (28mm FFE), I was sure I'd never get used to how wide it was - I was very wrong...
Yesterday I picked up a vintage Canon 28mm for last film camera and I'm pretty sure that will be the last change for me...
TMHO lens choice is depending on the situation but I prefer in all cases a macro lens over a tele lens with close-up filter.
For dangerous species I would go for a macro 180mm, for all the rest I use my RF 100mm which has an incredibly fast AF which is handsome when you do handheld macro photography as I do.
Also related to the situation, magnification etc. I use whether a FF or a crop camera with the same lens...
Kindest regards,
Stany
I am a macro lens fan, when working in medical photography I found uses for all focal lengths of macro lenses. A 50/55/60mm was mostly used for copy work, mostly from medical illustrators relying on the flat field properties more than macro properties. A 100/105mm for instrument photography and a 200mm for surgical work. Now I have a 55mm AFD, 105mm and 200mm AiS Micro Nikkor lenses and I use them on my Leica mirrorless. The nice thing about a macro lens is you don't have to fiddle with auxillary lenses and the lens can focus from infinity to 1:2 when it is on your camera.