Extension tubes...which lens to start with?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/09/2006 09:59:31 PM · #1

I just got a set of Kenko extension tubes. I'd like to get to experimenting right away, but after a long, hot day building a waterfall I'm beat and I'm going to get some rest.

So, I'd love to get up in the morning to some 'head start hints' as to which lens I should try with which extension tube or combination of extension tubes.

The obvious choice would be to use the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, but which tube or combo gives good results with this lens?

What about the 70-200 VR? Does it work well with extension tubes, and if so then how about with the 80-400 VR? I'd really like to play around with getting super closeups of bugs, especially their eyes. Will these lenses, in tandem with the extension tubes get these type of images?

Or am I better off trying the 12-24 Tokina?

I really don't know where to start (except for the Tamron macro) and I'd really like to get to something productive as soon as possible. The problem is that I don't know what results these lenses will give me with extension tubes.

So, for those of you who have experience with these extension tubes, please point me in the right direction.

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

08/10/2006 03:56:07 AM · #2

I've used extension tubes with my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 with pleasing results. Of the lenses you mentioned, that would be my first choice of lens to use with the tubes. The 70-200 and 80-400 (at the long ends) could be fine as well - although you'll need more light than with the 90/2.8. I expect that there is no point using them on the 12-24.

Any tube or combination of tubes can be appropriate - it depends on how big your subject is, and how much magnification you want to get. Try experimenting with small simple objects such as coins, dice, pieces of Lego etc. - use different tubes with the 90mm, 200 and 400 and compare the image size/depth of field/etc. For simplicity, I'd suggest keeping the focus on infinity and moving the camera or the object.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

08/10/2006 07:16:01 AM · #3

Just remember... the only thing an extension tube does, is let you get closer to your subject (that's the distance from the focal plane to the subject). And generally, the only reason you'd want to do that, is to increase the magnification of your lens.

The best lens to put it on, then, would be the one that gets you the most magnification to start. So if you look at the technical specs for each lens, the one that comes closest to 1:1 is the one to put it on. And that, quite likely, is the one that has macro in it's name. :-)

The only reason to put it on a longer lens which has a lower starting magnification, would be to increase the magnification of that lens, while still maintaining some distance from your subject. (i.e. the 70-200 may not have as great of magnification as the 90mm macro, but you'll be able to stay further away from the subject which might be important if you're shooting bugs)

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/10/2006 07:32:48 AM · #4

i say the 12-24 with the 12mm extension

nice and close to a flower

wide angle macros look very cool

:)

GuGi

Nikon D750

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

08/10/2006 07:41:31 AM · #5

I use my tubes on the 50mm 1.4 and it fun - but pretty hard to focus.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/10/2006 07:52:13 AM · #6

Starting this thread was one of the last things I did before going to bed and checking it is one of the first things I'm doing now that I'm up.

Your replies are very helpful.

I'll start with the 90mm and try various tube combinations, see what the 70-200 does for more distance, and then try getting "inside" a flower with the wide angle as hopper suggested.

Thanks everybody.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

08/10/2006 09:59:23 AM · #7

I really doubt that even the 12mm tube will work with the 12-24 except maybe close to the 24mm end. The 12mm extension was unusable on my Nikkor 12-24, so I would imagine simular results with the Tokina. @ 12 on the Nikkor the point of focus was actually in the lens. Remember that the shorter the focal length the greater the effect. To get to 1:1 with any given focal length you need as much extension as the focal length (at infinity). So your 90mm requires 90mm of extension to get to 1:1 (without its own extension), and the longer the extension the more softness from defraction. I would suggest the 50mm f1.8 to start. Its speed allows allows brighter viewfinder images, and its quite sharp. Other good options are the 35mm f2 and 45mm f2.8P.

here is an example I shot with Kenko extension tubes (two the 36 & 12mm), Nikon D70 & the AF50mm f1.8D.

deapee

Kodak V803

08/10/2006 10:33:41 AM · #8

Generally, you have to be above 50mm for an extension tube to work.

I've used my kenko tube set with all my lenses just to test them out. It works best with the 105 2.8 (not surprisingly). It works with the 18-70 although it's a real pain to focus because that lens wasn't set up for manual focusing really. The 50 1.8 works also, but it too is a bit small and you'll have a hard time focusing.

I will say that I wouldn't mess with any macro lens other than a 105 2.8 (100 2.8 ok too for canon I suppose). Sigma's and Nikon's are just amazing. For the price (as opposed to the 150mm, you can't go wrong). Most of the time, I have my 105 2.8 on, the shortest extension, and a 1.4x teleconverter. That gives me A LOT of working distance.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/10/2006 11:04:50 AM · #9

Originally posted by hopper:

i say the 12-24 with the 12mm extension

nice and close to a flower

wide angle macros look very cool

:)

Have you tried this?

With my 12-24 and a 12mm extension tube, the farthest focus point becomes about 5mm away from the front element. I can focus on dust sitting on the front element though.

When using short focal length lenses, unless you have very short extension (2 to 4mm) it's easy to get to a point where the range of focus possible is entirely inside the physical lens. An interesting phenomena, but not one with much practical use.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 11:05:44.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/10/2006 11:13:06 AM · #10

no, i haven't tried it with that exact lens - i don't have anything wider than 24mm. I was just trying to point out that wide angle macros can offer a very cool perspective.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by hopper:
i say the 12-24 with the 12mm extension

nice and close to a flower

wide angle macros look very cool

:)

Have you tried this?

With my 12-24 and a 12mm extension tube, the farthest focus point becomes about 5mm away from the front element. I can focus on dust sitting on the front element though.

When using short focal length lenses, unless you have very short extension (2 to 4mm) it's easy to get to a point where the range of focus possible is entirely inside the physical lens. An interesting phenomena, but not one with much practical use.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/10/2006 11:22:31 AM · #11

Wide angle macros are cool, but the typical set of extension tubes (12mm 24mm and 36mm) are of little use in that regard.

Shorter extension tubes do exist, I've just never seen any in the EOS mount. Unless you have such a tube, the best way to get that perspective is a close focusing wide-angle lens.

Originally posted by hopper:

no, i haven't tried it with that exact lens - i don't have anything wider than 24mm. I was just trying to point out that wide angle macros can offer a very cool perspective.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by hopper:
i say the 12-24 with the 12mm extension

nice and close to a flower

wide angle macros look very cool

:)

Have you tried this?

With my 12-24 and a 12mm extension tube, the farthest focus point becomes about 5mm away from the front element. I can focus on dust sitting on the front element though.

When using short focal length lenses, unless you have very short extension (2 to 4mm) it's easy to get to a point where the range of focus possible is entirely inside the physical lens. An interesting phenomena, but not one with much practical use.

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

08/10/2006 11:27:16 AM · #12

mind if i ask how much these tubes cost? or if anyone could post a link to a site that can give me a ballpark figure?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/10/2006 11:29:11 AM · #13

WA macros can give a very inteeresting perspective. This shot:

was done with the Canon 15mm fisheye and a 12mm extension tube. The closest tack point is about 3mm from the front element.
The 12mm tube is really a little too long for this lens, but would probably be appropriate for a lens in the 20-24mm range.
This shot:

Was taken using an 8mm fisheye (the Peleng) in M42 mount. Unscrewing the lens a little (a turn or two) from the M42>EOS adapter gave enought extension (a couple millimeters) to gain a very close minimum focus distance.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/10/2006 11:30:32 AM · #14

Originally posted by Bugzeye:

mind if i ask how much these tubes cost? or if anyone could post a link to a site that can give me a ballpark figure?

Google is your friend

fotomann_forever

08/10/2006 11:32:28 AM · #15

Originally posted by yakatme:

but after a long, hot day building a waterfall I'm beat and I'm going to get some rest.

Building a Waterfall? I wasn't aware we were having a water challenge? ;-)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/10/2006 11:34:12 AM · #16

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by yakatme:
but after a long, hot day building a waterfall I'm beat and I'm going to get some rest.

Building a Waterfall? I wasn't aware we were having a water challenge? ;-)

He thought we were having one... but he's all wet.

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

08/10/2006 12:35:15 PM · #17

thanks, i was wondering what the difference was between the tubes and a 2x or 4x teleconverter was, The tube basically blows up or enlarges the frame vs bringing the subject closer ?

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Bugzeye:
mind if i ask how much these tubes cost? or if anyone could post a link to a site that can give me a ballpark figure?

Google is your friend

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/10/2006 12:47:59 PM · #18

Originally posted by Bugzeye:

thanks, i was wondering what the difference was between the tubes and a 2x or 4x teleconverter was, The tube basically blows up or enlarges the frame vs bringing the subject closer ?

An extension tube has no optics and does not affect image quality except in the reduction of the amount of light available. It simply extends the distance of your lens to the back plane which enables you to focus closer to the subject (at the cost of losing distance focusing). Basically, the camera becomes near sighted. But boy can it see up close. :-)

Teleconverters have optics intended to magnify the image. This will not only reduce the light available, but will also degrade the image. I have and regularly use a Canon 2x Extender for sports. However, my theory is ... use a teleconverter *only if* there is no other way to get the shot.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/10/2006 06:39:48 PM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by yakatme:
but after a long, hot day building a waterfall I'm beat and I'm going to get some rest.

Building a Waterfall? I wasn't aware we were having a water challenge? ;-)

He thought we were having one... but he's all wet.

Designing and installing landscapes, ponds, and waterfalls is half of what my company does. I also have a wholesale plant and tree nursery.

This was a completely empty yard (except for the wall and the grass) before we started. We built and installed everything that you see in this yard in only eight days.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

08/10/2006 06:44:43 PM · #20

Originally posted by yakatme:

...This was a completely empty yard (except for the wall and the grass) before we started. We built and installed everything that you see in this yard in only eight days.

That is impressive!