I have a Canon 70-200 L 2.8 zoom lens. I was thinking of buing a 500 D close up lens. Is this optically inferior to a true macro lens, like 100 2.8 macro USM? Is there any other difference? Thanks in advance.

-- Stelios Veronis (steliosveronis@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002

Answers

Not so much "inferior" as intended for wholly different purposes. The 500D is a nice chunk of glass for a supplementary lens.

Your next purchase should be of paper, not glass. Get yourself a copy of John Shaw's "Close-Ups in Nature" (Amphoto). This book is easily the most widely referenced work on close-up, macro, and micro image making. It's real value for someone in your position is it will clear up the bewildering assortment of 'macro' gear available out there and provide a guide for how you should spend your money to undertake the projects you contemplate. Macro lenses are most useful for some magnification ranges, supplementary lenses (like the 500D) for others, and extension tubes for still others. Read and learn.

Cheers!

-- Robert Segal (robertsegal@juno.com), March 24, 2002.

Yes. Even the nicest of supplementary lenses on the nicest of 70-200 zooms is not going to match the optical quality of a canon macro lens in a macro situation. More versatile, certainly, and probably often good enough; but not equal.

rick :)=

-- rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

Huzzah to both of the above replies. I own John Shaw's book and every month or two go back and re-read it. Each time I pick up something I missed for a technique.

My Minolta 100 f3.5 macro lens spanks even the Nikon supplimentary lenses. (I borrowed one...) There are only two other ways to come close to a dedicated macro lens. Reverse your 50mm lens, and bellows. Both will take advantage of the excellent glass you have in your "standard" lens. But a dedicated macro takes the cake. And a 100mm macro lens gives you lots of working room.

-- Don Tuleja (don@calimages.com), March 26, 2002.