Does the 2.2x work good for macro and do you use the whole lens or a part of it?
271246
No, the 2.2x does not work well for macro. The wide-angle lens works for macro with the included adapter. The wide-angle less uses part of the lens.
271247
This fits your lenses like a 'lens cap'. It's cheap and it works well. It increases the flexibility of your lens without having to spend a lot of money. I have never tried taking it apart, I use the whole thing. I am not a 'big spender', I have only two kit lenses, a 18-55 and 50-200. I use these lenses with a used Pentax K100D Super which I purchased from Amazon for $50. I'm very happy with the flexibility the 2.2x Macro and .43 Wide Angle give me.
80622
Yes, I have a T2i with 2 kit lens. I purchased the 50mm f1.8 and it's a wonderful little lens, great for portraits and closeups. I recently (literally a day ago) bought the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 without VC. All I can say is WOW. For less than $500 I finally found a lens that does everything really well. Photos and videos. It's super sharp and super fast. I didn't get the VC version of this lens as I've read mixed reviews about softness. The older lens is beautiful!
138092
Hello Hugh, It focuses super fast, zooms from wide-angle to super-telephoto, and gets close enough for macro shots. However, this is not a replacement for macro lens. Suggestions for Canon macro lens - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS or Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L. If you looking for cheaper options - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM or Canon EF 50mm f/2.5.
1114827
The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND... » Read More The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ « Show Less
1914228
Yes - but manual focus only. You can only Macro at 35mm with the f/2.8 With the f/3.5 you can Macro at 70mm.Google Ken Rockwell Nikon 35-70 f/3.5 and read the articles - also on the f/2.8.These lenses are a steal. Don't be put off by the manual focusing.
1588419
The 2x is an excellent extender, however it does slow down the auto focus response of whichever lens it is attached to more than the 1.4x. I think the 1.4x allows for noticiably crisper images than the 2x with my 300mm f4.00 Canon lens, but the 2x does extend the range some of course. I have both extenders, but the 2.0 ends up sitting in my camera bag a lot more often that the 1.4. They are bothe excellent extenders, and make my excellent 300mm lens a very good 460mm lens and an above average 600mm lens in my opinion.
1114829
This lens is good because its simplicity. That is all I can say. I suspect that adding "macro" to its name makes it less simple which is not good)))
1249481
Yeah, Diverhank nailed it - two very different lenses. Important to note that the 50mm 1.4 is NOT a macro lens and that was something you mentioned in your initial post. I used the 50mm on my T2i and absolutely loved it, though I eventually upgraded (and much preferred) the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the "normal" focal length on the crop-sensor. I now shoot a full frame and primarily use the 50mm but will likely get the 100mm shortly. Be sure to take a look at the Sigma 30mm before buying the 50mm Canon but if Macro is what you're looking for, you can't go wrong with the 100mm L.
101690
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s)... » Read More I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail « Show Less
1770840
It really depends on how close a macro shot you are looking to take. I tried to use this lens for some really close macro shot and it did not focus well. Have to use manual focus. This is overall a very good lens but if you are looking for specific lens to take exceptionally good close macro shots then it is better to get a true macro lens.
933400
The lens is not a macro lens. It is a very good lens - expensive glass and worth it. My second favorite lens after the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8.
1249479
I have the Canon 50mm 1.4. The Bokeh is not very good. not a good choice for macro. I'm now looking for a macro lens.
1610125
No- the focusing distance is much too far. Great lens- but not for macro work.
916480
It depends on what you like to shoot. I am a novice to the photography game and I have several lenses in my arsenal. I own the 100mm macro, 17-40mm L, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f4L and the 50mm 1.8. My favorite two are the 100mm macro and the 70-200. Both give me sharp crisp images. I tend not to use the 50mm much any more. If I needed that focal lenght I would chose the 17-55 which is fast, great in low and the images are superb. For a general vacation lens combo, I take the 17-55 and the 70-200mm.
1160044
I have the same lens bro and it went well.But you'll have to use the lens on its longest zoom (135mm) to get the macro effect.It's not a macro lens, but it's quite handy if you need to shoot a big closeup.
552989
I have been using the Hd Pentax-DA 1:2.8 Macro. Any filter, UV, magnifying, or otherwise when attached to any lens becomes part of your optics. When I want extreme sharpness I even remove the UV filters. Then I have to remember to put them back because they protect the expensive lens. Nothing beats the Macro lens compared to a filter, if the expense is not a problem get the lens instead of adding layers of filters and degrading your optics.
1891732
I have used it for taking portraits, as well as for macro shots. You have to stand back a bit for portraits, especially full body shots. It works great and it's my favorite lens!