Macro lens vs Macro filter?
It's obvious which is less expensive, but which is a better choice? I'm not sure that I'll use a macro lens on my Nikon D60 enough to justify it's purchase… Would filters be suitable or only worth the little money I might pay for them?
If you don't do very often macrophotography, I think a filter is enough. Choose a good one
Queen,
If you can't afford a good quality true macro lens then there are two options I'd suggest for you to explore:
Optically, the best option is to go with extender rings - you only lose some light, but get the maximum quality from your lens.
For convenience, macro diopters are best; they are easy to attach & detach in the field, and are easy to stack and re-stack for various magnifications; I think this is the easiest way for you to start. You won't lose that much light with a good quality diopter.
Hoya is one brand for you to consider.
When it comes to any type of filter, you get what you pay for.
As far as "using a macro lens enough to justify its purchase"… It would depend on which lens you are considering. A macro lens can also be used as a regular lens.
I'm going to get the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro ($599) instead of the "normal" 100mm f/2 ($499). For $100 more, I get a lens that be used normally AND for macro/product work… Sure, I don't get the extra stop of light… But I can live with that.
I'm with Steve… I'd go for the extension tubes.
Like someone else said, a macro lens can be used for other things too. You aren't only limited to macro work. I happen to do very little macro work so I opted for the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 macro because I can use it for weddings and portraits too. The biggest drawback of a macro lens is they are slower on the focus. Something to be aware of when you are thinking about the purchase. If you shoot sports or anything that requires lightning fast focus you won't want to use a macro lens.
Full dress Harley or a Moped Touring Scooter?
The macro filter is just that. It offers no control of the image to subject ratio macro lenses are noted for providing. It does have a feature you may not like, softness at the edges of the image frame and colour aberrations.
A macro lens is a prime lens with sharpness from edge to edge with indexing for creating 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4 image to subject ratio images
What do you think. A nice AF-S 60 mm /2.8 macro at just under $600 that will last you for decades with precision macro capability or a so-called add-on "macro" for $40?
If you are critiacal of the work you produce with your camera, you will want to save your pennies to buy a real macro lens. Since at specific image to subject ratios, you will be moving the camera to focus the subject, you will NOT need auto focus. If you are cool with that, you can find some good deals on older Nikkor macros which you will need to manually focus.
See if you can find one of these beauties
Have a look at the free macro lesson here http://www.mccordall.com/photography/ it will show you the quality of extension tubes.