Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post
Clarification: Can't work easily with macro, which I should have written. And by that I mainly meant with extension tubes.
Many are the ways.

Not as nice as with the OM 20mm macro, which you can rack out to 12x and the working-distance doesn't change much with focussing, stays fairly constant at "bugger-all mm". Still I want one, for when I need to take photos of match-heads and all.
Really? As I pointed out, a reversed retrofocus lens has working distance much greater than its focal length.

But yeah, I wasn't thinking about reversed, which I've also done a bit of (manual-lenses only, there are ways to use EF but it gets complicated). And with the whole thing of pupil factors and effective apertures and all that, I'm too lazy to work it all out so I don't even bother attempting macro without accurate TTL metering, and only use flash when I can chimp on the digital...
Intellectually lazy, too. The key trick to using manual flash close up is to settle on a flash rig -- always the same camera-flash-subject geometry, including distances -- and shoot a series of calibration shots. Many are the ways. Calculate only to see roughly what's possible, then test.

Anyway, the OP hasn't clarified exactly how close 'macro' will be, we're all presuming that the smaller aperture is to get bigger DOF, but there could be other reasons like to purposefully introduce diffraction (in which case, may I suggest a pinhole?)
The OP posted and ran. I don't know whether it was a troll, too ignorant to understand the responses so far, or timid. Until proven otherwise -- I hope it will happen soon -- the OP is in the ignorant fantasist bucket. Anyone who can afford to run a 35 mm cine camera can afford a good education in basic photography and then a good education in cinematography. In the real world (H*O*L*L*Y*W*O*O*D) no one gets near a 35 mm camera without a good education.