Paul, The nice part about a dedicated macro lens is that the tubes are built in. This means that you can use it both as a macro lens, and a (slightly slow) regular lens without taking it off you camera to add tubes.
I don't have much experience with longer macros, but one thing to keep in mind, the longer the lens, the farther away you'll be able to be when going 1:1 . . . this means that with not so nice creatures you can be farther away and still get a good macro . . . the same goes for skittish creatures. So for taking wildlife photo's a longer macro may be better, depending how close you can get to the little herps. IL Bill Proud owner of a uromastyx benti Paul Ewins wrote: > > Hi everyone, > A friend of mine has an ever expanding collection of reptiles. > At the moment it includes a number of juveniles, inlcuding a rather > attractive goanna which is all of 5 inches (125mm) long at the moment. I > would like to take some photos of these wee beasties and was wondering what > would be the best option for animals of this size. > Right now I am restricted to using extension tubes, but my friend is always > trying to talk me into going on a collecting expedition, and if I'm going to > spend loads of money on petrol etc. I'd like to have the right lens for the > job too. Right now there is a Tamron 90mm on local eBay with a 1:1 > converter, but I've also seen the F50 2.8 and F100 2.8 lenses too, along > with their M series counterparts. > Do I need a dedicated macro lens, or can I get away with just using tubes? > > Paul Ewins > Melbourne, Australia > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
