C300: Macro Lenses or macro adopters/tubes?

[anatusa]

Hello

1. i d like to ask for some help guys, i am looking to get a macro Lens, but my question : is it really necessary? never worked with macro my self yet. So i wonder is it worth it? or its better to get macro converters / tubes? as i understand its possible to convert to macro any lens. is it so? are there any disadvantages using tubes instead of a real macro lens?

2. what would be a good macro lens? i kind of jumping into the zeiss world of lenses right now ... have 85mm f1.4 and 50 f1.4, if say true i got them 1st as they just were cheaper then canon red glass..... but if say true i kind of like it now.. so i am going to get the 15mm and 25mm ....
so i wonder their 50mm macro is as good as others, or u would think about something else?

regards

 

[cpreston]

The primary disadvantage of tubes is that it vastly decreases your focus range. You basically focus by tube choice. Also, it can have a hit on resolution with soft lenses, but I don't think you would notice on video. I actually prefer achromatic close-up lenses when I just need a bit of a bump over normal minimal focus.

I currently do not have a an autofocus macro. Everybody swears by the 100L, but the focus throw is useless for following focus in any way. Also, the IS is loud. I rely on the 95 TSE with extension tubes when I need a partial macro image. The TSE also allows much greater focus depth on close up images without bumping up ISO. I've also heard of people using a 1.4X teleconverter to help out with macro work.

 

[anatusa]

what would be more useful for macro? 50mm or 100mm?

also what does it mean 1:1 magnification(canon) or Magnification Ratio 1:2(zeiss)? what is better?