Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kennygee
So I can consider all the possible expenses before I buy a macro lens (probably the Sigma 105mm - I can't afford the Canon if there is further expenditure although looking at the excellent photos in the gallery there seems little between them). Can anybody tell me if a flash unit is a necessary accessory or merely desirable?
I do not have an external flash and would need to factor this into my budget. Will a general purpose flash be OK or is a dedicated Macro (ring?) flash required? If so recommendations/advice would be welcome
I also notice some members have included work using a macro lens with extension tubes for greater magnification on still subjects. Is there a way of calculating the magnification when using tubes? I presume that these are used at the expense of a loss of light.
|
I am trying to cover flash in its own thead with info that will build in time. Took some pics to post today, came here posted one in the gallery and due to the number of pics posted today have only just got here never mind sorting the pics.
In principle I am suggesting a way of doing flash on the cheap. You really have to do a lot of macro to get your moneys worth out of ring flashes etc, unless your subjects require you go that route.
You would loose a lot of light with extension tubes, and without checking I don't know about compatability issues with digital camera bodies.
In size terms ( inches across ) how small are the subjects you intend to photograph? It helps in understanding your requirements.
So far I would suggest all your cash initially goes into the lens. Flash on the cheap and forget tubes for now. If you go that way you would eventually wish you'd got bellows - MORE MONEY
Don