Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Macro lense suggestions

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 23, 2005 6:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Folks

I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well as
butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a 10D. I
have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated macro lens.
Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with other brands
if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice macro around the
80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most welcome.

regards


--
Don From Down Under
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:51:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tamron makes a 90mm macro and it has been around for about 20 years. I
first had one with a Minolta XG film camera and currently use a Canon mount
one with my Digital Rebel. It is an excellent macro lens. Canon also makes
a 100mm macro which is nice. For the best photos you should stick with a
straight macro as opposed to a zoom lens with macro.

Greg
"Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Folks
>
> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with
> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
> welcome.
>
> regards
>
>
> --
> Don From Down Under
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:51:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I had had the first version of the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro for a long
time and it's hard to beat. It's an excellent macro lens and an
excellent 100mm lens which is a 160mm f2.8 lens on your camera bodies.
I'd also look at the Canon 50mm macro lens.

Art
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:51:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Folks
>
> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with
> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
> welcome.
>
> regards
>
>
> --
> Don From Down Under
>

The Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro is an excellent lens, well worth the price of
admission. I'd show some images to you, but the site where I posted them
has sunk beneath the waves...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
February 23, 2005 7:36:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Folks, thanks. It would appear to be a toss up between the Tamron and the
100 Canon. Does anyone know as to whether the Canon twin speedlight
(MR-14X) will fit the Tamron?

regards

Don
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aATSd.34537$xt.6455@fed1read07...
> "Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Folks
>>
>> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
>> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
>> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
>> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
>> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with
>> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
>> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
>> welcome.
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>> --
>> Don From Down Under
>>
>
> The Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro is an excellent lens, well worth the price of
> admission. I'd show some images to you, but the site where I posted them
> has sunk beneath the waves...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:01:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Folks
>
> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with
> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
> welcome.
>
There's an excellent comparison between the Canon and the Tamron at this
site:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/
Basically they are pretty much on par.
The Canon 65mm is outstanding and offers 1.5x mag - but it's twice the price
:o (
Don't be tempted by shorter focal lengths - you need to keep a reasonable
distance from the subject to get good lighting (and avoid scaring the
subject away!). Th canon 50 is good but needs tubes to achieve 1:1 and is
getting a little too short. (too close to subject)
There are 150 and 180 macros around.
February 23, 2005 12:30:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks

most informative.

regards

Don
"Tumbleweed" <Shovels@five.paces> wrote in message
news:cvhgq9$imn$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Folks
>>
>> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
>> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
>> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
>> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
>> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with
>> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
>> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
>> welcome.
>>
> There's an excellent comparison between the Canon and the Tamron at this
> site:
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/
> Basically they are pretty much on par.
> The Canon 65mm is outstanding and offers 1.5x mag - but it's twice the
> price :o (
> Don't be tempted by shorter focal lengths - you need to keep a reasonable
> distance from the subject to get good lighting (and avoid scaring the
> subject away!). Th canon 50 is good but needs tubes to achieve 1:1 and is
> getting a little too short. (too close to subject)
> There are 150 and 180 macros around.
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:33:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since you have L grade glass, you might also consider trying Nikon's
multi-element close-up lenses (about $50USD), such as the 5T or 6T in
conjunction with a 200mm or so tele lens. These multi-element lenses are
quite sharp (not like the cheap single element glass), and with the tele,
give a longer working distance than short focal length macros do, and are
much less expensive.

If you are shooting only close-ups, you can find really good deals on Canon
100mm macros in FD models on e-bay--you give up autoexposure and autofocus,
and need an adapter, but they work really well...

Mike


"Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Folks
>
> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with
> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
> welcome.
>
> regards
>
>
> --
> Don From Down Under
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:05:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

grenner wrote

>Tamron makes a 90mm macro and it has been around for about 20 years. I
>first had one with a Minolta XG film camera and currently use a Canon mount
>one with my Digital Rebel. It is an excellent macro lens. Canon also makes
>a 100mm macro which is nice. For the best photos you should stick with a
>straight macro as opposed to a zoom lens with macro.

To which I'll add a recommendation to play around with both of these
lenses before choosing between them, as while the optics are of
comparable quality they handle quite differently.

--
Hil
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:11:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don wrote:
> Folks
>
> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as
> well as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D
> supported by a 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass
> but no dedicated macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I
> have no problem with other brands if they do the trick. I am told
> that Tamron makes a nice macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints
> and advice would be most welcome.
> regards

I suggest you start with your extension tubes and some L glass in the
200 mm range and see what happens.

Those insects don't like a crowd and even a 100 mm is going to put you
well inside their comfort zone. You may find that the glass you have will do
a good job. If not you will have experience to pick the focal length you
need for the way you work and the job at hand.

Good Luck

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Don wrote:
>> Folks
>>
>> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
>> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as
>> well as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D
>> supported by a 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass
>> but no dedicated macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I
>> have no problem with other brands if they do the trick. I am told
>> that Tamron makes a nice macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints
>> and advice would be most welcome.
>> regards
>
> I suggest you start with your extension tubes and some L glass in the
>200 mm range and see what happens.
>
> Those insects don't like a crowd and even a 100 mm is going to put you
>well inside their comfort zone. You may find that the glass you have will do
>a good job. If not you will have experience to pick the focal length you
>need for the way you work and the job at hand.
>
>Good Luck

I have tubes but no macro lens ... what does a macro lens offer that
the tubes don't? (I'm assuming speed ie. F-stop is one thing?!?!)

Thanks!
--
------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
------------------------------------------------
February 23, 2005 7:19:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

hi don
also have a look at the canon mp-e65mm macro f2.8
i have heard that it produces great photos

sam
www.digitalcity.net.au



"Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:nLTSd.171972$K7.72888@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Folks, thanks. It would appear to be a toss up between the Tamron and the
> 100 Canon. Does anyone know as to whether the Canon twin speedlight
> (MR-14X) will fit the Tamron?
>
> regards
>
> Don
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:aATSd.34537$xt.6455@fed1read07...
> > "Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Folks
> >>
> >> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> >> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as
well
> >> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a
> >> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
> >> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem
with
> >> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
> >> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
> >> welcome.
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Don From Down Under
> >>
> >
> > The Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro is an excellent lens, well worth the price of
> > admission. I'd show some images to you, but the site where I posted
them
> > has sunk beneath the waves...
> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> >
>
>
February 23, 2005 7:19:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cheers

will do

regards

Don
"Sam" <sam@dc> wrote in message news:421c1194$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
> hi don
> also have a look at the canon mp-e65mm macro f2.8
> i have heard that it produces great photos
>
> sam
> www.digitalcity.net.au
>
>
>
> "Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:nLTSd.171972$K7.72888@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Folks, thanks. It would appear to be a toss up between the Tamron and
>> the
>> 100 Canon. Does anyone know as to whether the Canon twin speedlight
>> (MR-14X) will fit the Tamron?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Don
>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:aATSd.34537$xt.6455@fed1read07...
>> > "Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> > news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> Folks
>> >>
>> >> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
>> >> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as
> well
>> >> as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by
>> >> a
>> >> 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated
>> >> macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem
> with
>> >> other brands if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice
>> >> macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most
>> >> welcome.
>> >>
>> >> regards
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Don From Down Under
>> >>
>> >
>> > The Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro is an excellent lens, well worth the price
>> > of
>> > admission. I'd show some images to you, but the site where I posted
> them
>> > has sunk beneath the waves...
>> >
>> > --
>> > Skip Middleton
>> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Doug Mitton wrote:
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don wrote:
>>> Folks
>>>
>>> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of
>>> insects gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and
>>> the like as well as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be
>>> a 20D supported by a 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good
>>> L glass but no dedicated macro lens. Canon would be my preferred
>>> choice but I have no problem with other brands if they do the
>>> trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice macro around the 80mm
>>> mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most welcome.
>>> regards
>>
>> I suggest you start with your extension tubes and some L glass in
>> the 200 mm range and see what happens.
>>
>> Those insects don't like a crowd and even a 100 mm is going to
>> put you well inside their comfort zone. You may find that the glass
>> you have will do a good job. If not you will have experience to
>> pick the focal length you need for the way you work and the job at
>> hand.
>>
>> Good Luck
>
> I have tubes but no macro lens ... what does a macro lens offer that
> the tubes don't? (I'm assuming speed ie. F-stop is one thing?!?!)
>
> Thanks!

Convenience. A true macro lens will focus from infinity to at least
half live size (this is getting a bit sticky with sensor sizes, but it
should still apply) and it full live size either with a single extension
tube or perhaps without any extension.

Generally macro lenses also offer a flatter field and are often
extremely sharp and designed to perform well at very small apertures.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:37:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z46dnSXqsIg1gYDfRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>
> The Sigma 105 1:2.8 macro is worth looking at.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/29130...

I have the Sigma 105mm EX macro lens and it is very sharp although it
focuses a bit slowly. Although I don't have the Sigma 150mm EX macro I have
seen some great shots with the lens and I would consider it if I had the
cash.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:32:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Doug Mitton" <doug_mitton@hotmail.x.com> wrote in message
news:8tep11l1fv8iqatijq3buij8ajv10cnk3b@4ax.com...
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Don wrote:
>>> Folks
>>>
>>> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
>>> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as
>>> well as butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D
>>> supported by a 10D. I have extension tubes and lots of good L glass
>>> but no dedicated macro lens. Canon would be my preferred choice but I
>>> have no problem with other brands if they do the trick. I am told
>>> that Tamron makes a nice macro around the 80mm mark? Any ideas hints
>>> and advice would be most welcome.
>>> regards
>>
>> I suggest you start with your extension tubes and some L glass in the
>>200 mm range and see what happens.
>>
>> Those insects don't like a crowd and even a 100 mm is going to put you
>>well inside their comfort zone. You may find that the glass you have will
>>do
>>a good job. If not you will have experience to pick the focal length you
>>need for the way you work and the job at hand.
>>
>>Good Luck
>
> I have tubes but no macro lens ... what does a macro lens offer that
> the tubes don't? (I'm assuming speed ie. F-stop is one thing?!?!)
>
> Thanks!
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
> SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
> ------------------------------------------------

A macro lens will be optimised for close subjects and should give superior
performance.

Modern macro lenses will have internal focusing allowing the minimisation of
aberrations over the designed focusing range.

A common trick with ordinary lenses used to be to use a reversing ring to
use the lens with the rear element facing the subject - of course you loose
aperture control that way and I don't know if it will work with EF lenses.

If you have the budget go with a dedicated macro lens. If you are working
close to life size go for at least 100mm so you have enough space to light
the subject. If the subject is alive you might want more space - in which
case the Canon 180mm may be worth considering.
February 24, 2005 1:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
> Generally macro lenses also offer a flatter field and are often


What does 'flatter field' mean?



> extremely sharp and designed to perform well at very small apertures.


Yes, I was just reading that a nice way to do macro work is with lots of
flash and very small aperture like f/22 so the depth of field is not
ridiculously small. I was considering a good quality diopter filter on
the front of a 200mm lens but I wonder if that might poop out at crazy
f-stops like that. I know that means I'm going to have to do some sensor
dust cleaning because that becomes visible at small apertures.

The diopter option is not as nice as a real macro lens but screwing on a
filter is easier than changing lenses.

Very informative thread.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 8:58:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Tamron is a good lens ... but for insect photography I would go with
the longest lens I could get (the Canon 180 mm Macro), and add the 2X
multiplier.

That way you would be able to get a twice life sized maximum image, or life
sized image at roughly 720 mm (roughly 28.5 inches) from the insect.




"Don" <mackie.don@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:35TSd.171916$K7.126579@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Folks
>
> I wish to start on a project that will involve taking shots of insects
> gathering nectar from Australian native plants (bees and the like as well
as
> butterflies, bugs & birds). Main body is to be a 20D supported by a 10D.
I
> have extension tubes and lots of good L glass but no dedicated macro
lens.
> Canon would be my preferred choice but I have no problem with other
brands
> if they do the trick. I am told that Tamron makes a nice macro around
the
> 80mm mark? Any ideas hints and advice would be most welcome.
>
> regards
>
>
> --
> Don From Down Under
>
>
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:52:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Yes, I was just reading that a nice way to do macro work is with lots
of
> flash and very small aperture like f/22 so the depth of field is not
> ridiculously small. I was considering a good quality diopter filter
on
> the front of a 200mm lens but I wonder if that might poop out at
crazy
> f-stops like that.

Diopter will be worse with large aperture.

> I know that means I'm going to have to do some sensor
> dust cleaning because that becomes visible at small apertures.

Sensor dust is not affected by aperture. Lens dust is.

> The diopter option is not as nice as a real macro lens but screwing
on a
> filter is easier than changing lenses.

Extension tube does not degrade sharpness as diopter.
February 25, 2005 1:18:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bj286@scn.org wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>>flash and very small aperture like f/22 so the depth of field is not
>>ridiculously small. I was considering a good quality diopter filter
>> on the front of a 200mm lens but I wonder if that might poop out at
>> crazy f-stops like that.
>
>
> Diopter will be worse with large aperture.


In what way?



>
>>I know that means I'm going to have to do some sensor
>>dust cleaning because that becomes visible at small apertures.
>
>
> Sensor dust is not affected by aperture. Lens dust is.


<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
Is that lens dust or sensor dust?


>
>
>>The diopter option is not as nice as a real macro lens but screwing
>> on a filter is easier than changing lenses.
>
>
> Extension tube does not degrade sharpness as diopter.


OK thanks for the observation.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:01:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:5PCdnZyFg6Kfg4PfRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net...
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>
>> Generally macro lenses also offer a flatter field and are often
>
>
> What does 'flatter field' mean?

Most macro lenses will focus an a piece of paper and the center and the
edges will both be in focus. Most non-macro lenses will focus on the center
or the edge but not both at the same time. In most photographs the lack of
a flat field will not be a problem, but it can often be a problem in macro
work.

>
>
>
>> extremely sharp and designed to perform well at very small apertures.
>
>
> Yes, I was just reading that a nice way to do macro work is with lots of
> flash and very small aperture like f/22 so the depth of field is not
> ridiculously small. I was considering a good quality diopter filter on the
> front of a 200mm lens but I wonder if that might poop out at crazy f-stops
> like that. I know that means I'm going to have to do some sensor dust
> cleaning because that becomes visible at small apertures.
>
> The diopter option is not as nice as a real macro lens but screwing on a
> filter is easier than changing lenses.
>
> Very informative thread.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:00:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

> bj286@scn.org wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>>flash and very small aperture like f/22 so the depth of field is not
>>>ridiculously small. I was considering a good quality diopter filter
>>> on the front of a 200mm lens but I wonder if that might poop out at
>>> crazy f-stops like that.
>>
>>
>> Diopter will be worse with large aperture.
>
>
> In what way?
>
>
>
>>
>>>I know that means I'm going to have to do some sensor
>>>dust cleaning because that becomes visible at small apertures.
>>
>>
>> Sensor dust is not affected by aperture. Lens dust is.
>
>
><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>G=1&PIC=2>
> Is that lens dust or sensor dust?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>The diopter option is not as nice as a real macro lens but screwing
>>> on a filter is easier than changing lenses.
>>
>>
>> Extension tube does not degrade sharpness as diopter.
>
>
> OK thanks for the observation.
>

Sensor dust is very definitely affected by aperture. Take a dusty sensor
and do a sky shot at f/4 and one at f/22 and try to tell yourself that
the dust isn't about 20 times as obvious at f/22.
!