http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3
7298&is=REG

and a step ring is a MUCH better investment. On a zoom you can control the
amount of mag with the zoom ring so you don't need a "set" like you would
with a fixed focal length lens.

Glad I could help.

That's a good choice at a good price.  At that price, I assume that
they are single element close up lenses.  If so, stop down to f/11 for
best results.

All other things being equal, a 50mm lens gives a greater depth of
field than a 100mm lens but at the expense of a shorter working
distance.  In the 35mm film market, over the years there has been a
steady trend away from shorter focal length macro lenses to longer
focal lengths.  The main reason for this is the greater working
distance with the longer lenses - with a 50mm lens you end up working
very close to your subject, which - among other things - makes flash
illumination problematic.

I have no knowledge of the Canon 50mm f/2.5.  The 60mm f/2.8 and 100mm
f/2.8 Canon EF lenses are outstanding performers, both well up to
professional standards.  The Sigma is also a very good performer, and
is highly rated by people who use it.  There is also a Sigma 180mm
f/3.5 which is a new product.  It has performed well in bench tests
and also looks like a very good performer.  The two Canon lenses are
better made than the two Sigmas, which are well finished externally
but probably not as well made internally as they might appear.

Your choice of focal length is a personal one.  No-one can advise you,
it is simply a matter of what suits you best.  If you value depth of
field, choose shorter focal lengths.  If you prefer a longer working
distance, choose a longer focal length but be prepared to have a very
restricted depth of field.  Don't forget that the APS size sensor in
your Canon digital factor means that you get the angle of view of a
lens with a 1.6X longer focal length, so the 60mm f/2.8 offers the
same angle of view of a 96mm f/2.8 on a 35mm film SLR.  

(60 x 1.6 = 96)

The longer focal lengths also need a very sturdy tripod, but this is
in any case a prerequisite for serious macro work.

The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is almost unique by 21st century standards, in
that it is not only a very good macro lens but also an outstanding
portrait lens.  

Most macro lenses are optimised for ultimate sharpness at short macro
focusing distances.  This usually leads to an unpleasant, harsh
rendition of out of focus backgrounds, especially highlights, which
are rendered as obtrusive bright circles with the edges brighter than
the centre.  At portrait distances, the Sigma 105mm is especially poor
in this respect, although it is a fine performer in the macro range
that it was designed for.

The Tamron is optimised at macro and portrait focal lengths, and has a
very pleasant rendition of out of focus background highlights, with
the circles being brighter in the centre and having soft edges that
fade into the background.  This gives what most people would consider
a more natural "look" to portrait images produced with this lens,
comparable with some of the finest specialist portrait lenses made by
Zeiss, Leica and Nikon, none of which will serve as macro lenses.

Buying the Tamron offers a unique opportunity to own a superb dual
purpose lens, equally at home in the macro range and when making very
flattering portraits, particularly of subjects who are not in the
first flush of youth.  <g>  

The Tamron was not unique in the late 20th century; macro lenses with
a similar aptitude for rendering portraits were also made by Tokina,
Vivitar, Sigma (all 90mm f/2.8) and by Kiron (100mm f/2.5) in the
1970s and 1980s, but only the Tamron is still available new today.  

As an inexpensive entry to macro photography, I repeat my
recommendation of the Cosina/Vivitar/Phoenix/Soligor 100mm f/3.5.
This lens is not well made, and has the feel of very poor quality,
especially when focusing, but the results are surprisingly good for
such a cheap lens.  Much like your Hoya close-up lenses, it would be
worth considering one of these inexpensive performers as a first step.

Versions of this lens were offered by Canon and Pentax under their own
brands several years ago, but I understand build quality issues meant
that both manufacturers dropped the lens from their ranges.  You might
find examples of the Canon version for sale used on eBay.

My pleasure.

;-)

Folks, I note that the latest 9OMM Tamron Macro is a DI lens (272E).  The
site I looked at provides this information:

"Outstanding image quality by virtue of "Di" (Digitally Integrated) design
The lens provides outstanding image quality whether the medium in use is
silver halide (film) or a digital image sensor, since it features Tamron's
"Di" optical system designed* to meet the performance characteristics of
digital cameras as well as film cameras.

*Model 272E uses the same type optical configuration as that of the
conventional model 172E, but the "Di" design is achieved by applying a new
optical design to its coating surfaces to eliminate optical aberrations
commonly seen when traditional optics are used on digital SLR cameras"

Has anyone here experience of the new model?  Most reports I have read have
been on the older model.  Also, can the Canon Macro flashes MR14EX and MT24
fit to the front of the Tamron lens to offer the same functionality of the
equivalent Canon lens with either of these fitted.  Look forwarded to any
and all comments.

regards

Don from Down Under

OK so the correct term is "closeup lens" or concievably "closeup filter"
and the correct usage of the word "diopter" would be:

I put a +2 diopter closeup lens on the filter threads of my camera.

or

With a closeup lens of +2 diopter, my lens is capable of 1:1 magnification.