Wow, I didn't mean to start an argument that seems to not have any actual disagreement [] I meant to suggest extension tubes just so that you could focus closer to take pictures of models... close. That way, you can get pictures that get up close (to make small things look bigger) but also don't look like a telephoto close up shot.


You'd certainly have to stop down, but you'd have to do that with a macro lense too. You'll have long exposures too, but she said she's using a tripod. I was just thinking that she likes her Macro, but the 60mm (on 1.6x no less) is contraining the field of view. To get similar quality, it's most cost effective to go with a prime, maybe even two primes, and provide the ability for macro-like magnification without sacrificing the field of view with extension tubes. Changing lenses and adding extension tubes when you need them (and taking them off when you don't) is kind of a hassle, but her subjects aren't exactly moving, and she's got a tripod most of the time anyway. That's my reasoning. I like extension tubes as an option. I think the Kenko ones I got are a good value. I'd prefer to have a 35mm macro lens, but getting 1:1 on a 35mm lens seems to require pretty much touching the subject with the front element anyway.


Point and shoot seems like a good idea, just in that it can be physically smaller, and fit into places, though she's indicated that the quality available in such a scenario isn't what she's looking for.


You could also get extension tubes for a 17-55 f/2.8 as well.


So, yeah, I'd rather have macro abilities native to the lense at the focal length, but sometimes extension tubes just allow you to do what you want to do, i.e., get closer.