>>3343357>>3343365>>3343377>>3343414Cripes that sucks. I've been using extension tubes to get to 1:1 or whatever I want, using which ever lens gives me the best image and/or best working distance for the job.
Here's what I got last night using a, "Nikkor, 35-200mm, f/3.5-f/4.5, AI-S, 1:4 'Macro', Manual" with a 171mm extension tube. The 'working distance' for this was around 10-12 inches. That's from the front of the lens to the subject, not the sensor to the subject. I was going to do a focus stack or 2-3 images, but the this guy buggered off after the 1st photo to catch a gnat.
>Lens: Nikkor, 35-200mm, f/3.5, AI-S, 1:4 "Macro", Manual in "macro mode setting 1:7".>F-stop: f/8>Extension: 171mm>Magnification: 1:1>Spider: Pholcus phalangioidesSince there's like 10-12 inches of working distance at 1:1 for this lens, I can actually adjust it to get higher magnifications. That cuts the working distance very quickly though. In the fallacious "macro mode" setting sliding the lens shorter, shortens the lens so much, I can actually focus on dust on/inside the lens elements while using a large extension tube. Getting 2:1 means the working distance is only about 0.5cm-1cm. With other lenses, I can get up to 6:1 with crazy amounts of extension tubes and still have around 2 feet of working distance.
Working distances, at 1:1 on some lenses with extension tubes, can be so long that it renders a ring light worthless. I'm talking 5 feet away sometimes. I've held off buying a dedicated macro lens specifically because I want to know more about their disadvantages, such as the one I didn't know about until I read your posts. I do a lot of photos with live insects and I really need that longer working distance to prevent scaring them off.
