Canon 250D & 500D Lenses

[Haydn1971]

I've had a interest in plant and flower photography over the last few years, which has kinda led me into getting a 50mm f1.4 plus looking forward to some striking images with my Xmas gift, a lensbaby.  But I've also been playing with the idea of close up / macro photography - the idea of a macro lens is nice, but I'm wanting to get a feel for the close up lenses made by canon, in particular with my current lens kit.

I'm pondering a 58mm 250D or 500D to use on my 50 f1.4 and 70-300 IS or a 72mm 500D for use on my 135mm f2 L and wanted to get a feel for the handling - are these kinda lenses easier to use on a prime or zoom, I'm aware that image quality may suffer, but I've not got a high end camera...   I mostly use my 50 & 135 for flowers and plant life photos and most shots are taken in shade illumination.

Thoughts ?

[neuroanatomist]

Depends on the lens. For anything shorter than 70-100mm, an extension tube is better.  Longer than 100mm, you're usually better off with the close-up lens.  A tube has no optics - you lose infinity focus, lose a little light (autoexposure compensates), so IQ is the same as the bare lens.  A close up lens costs no light, but your working distance (front element to subject) is fixed at 25 cm for the 250D, 50 cm for the 500D.  That can be a challenge.

I tested the 500D on a 70-200 II vs. the 100L macro, and the results were very similar, but a lesser lens would suffer more.  The 135L should give good IQ, but less mag than a longer lens.

[Haydn1971]

Cheers for that, presumably the 70-200 @ 100mm vs the 100mm macro ?  Or are you talking specifically about the image quality in general ?

[neuroanatomist]

Talking about IQ. 70-200 at 200mm with 500D gives 0.6x mag, I compared that to the 100L with similar framing.  The 135L with 500D gives 0.48x.

[Haydn1971]

I'll go and have a play with the options in the local shop after Xmas ;-)