. For intermediate ring itself I saw him at six different lenses getest, here the evaluation:
1) With the 24-105 IS L from Canon to great results can be achieved, the "enlargement" is really enormous, but only at 105 mm; also works only with the AF 105mm, but relatively slow - in other words: with fast-moving animals one has no chance
2) to the 70-200 f4 L IS can be also get great results from the magnification Although mE a tad less than the 24-105, but that was sharper picture with me and also the AF at 70mm was ok
3) the Canon 50mm f 1.8 worked for me nothing, neither AF nor manual focusing was possible
4) The same surprisingly the Canon 10-22
5) with the Canon 18-55 f3.5, however great results can be achieved
6) I was particularly excited that the intermediate ring has also on 100mm macro benefits. In fact, he also benefits there, but only to a limited extent. and: which is (of course) even more difficult to focus on. in the wild is therefore more than doubtful that the intermediate ring is heir beneficial.
the handling ago I found him in the rest not so outstanding as other reviewers of "bomb-proof" may be nciht talk. But not bother me
Therefore, the conclusion is ambivalent.
Who has a relatively cheap equipment and do not want to spend a lot of that can be achieved with the intermediate ring and the 18-55 good results. Also in the upmarket of 24-105 and 70-200 is the case.
However, it remains the image quality just yet clearly behind the back of a real macros, therefore definitely not a replacement.
