DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> macro lens or extension tubes.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/14/2013 02:16:40 PM · #1
Ok so I have been wanting to do some macro shots and cant decide if I should buy a macro lens or extension tube (Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS Lenses).
Then lenses i have now are:
Canon
18-55 Is
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
sigma 10mm Fisheye
70-200 F4 L

Looks like the prices are similar used 50mm macro lens or the Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS Lenses.
Anyone have any input or have been through this already?
02/14/2013 03:05:33 PM · #2
Originally posted by mitchamus:

Ok so I have been wanting to do some macro shots and cant decide if I should buy a macro lens or extension tube (Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS Lenses).
Then lenses i have now are:
Canon
18-55 Is
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
sigma 10mm Fisheye
70-200 F4 L

Looks like the prices are similar used 50mm macro lens or the Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS Lenses.
Anyone have any input or have been through this already?


first you need to know what kind of macro you would like to shoot? Not all macro lenses work for all situations.

50mm can be great but you will be really close to your subject ( could be casting shadow with your lens) . With 50mm you can forget about macro images of snakes, spiders and other not friendly stuff ( 200mm macro is better choice for this)

02/14/2013 03:15:28 PM · #3
I don't have a true macro lens, though I did buy a set of the Kenko tubes. There were a lot of limitations to them, but they work. I haven't used them a lot, however.

These were shot with a 12mm tube on a canon 17-85 lens at 85mm. I think they fall a little short of the clarity I was hoping to achieve.


It's an important thing to understand that an extension tube does not increase the focal length or magnification of your lens. What it does is to decrease the minimum focusing distance of the lens. I felt that somewhere between 50-90mm was the best focal length to use with them. Longer focal length did not get me close enough and shorter did not magnify enough. I even tried it with my 10-24 wideangle, which can focus as close as 9". I think the focus point was somewhere near the back of my head.

I think a dedicated Macro lens would be the superior choice.

Message edited by author 2013-02-14 15:20:41.
02/14/2013 03:35:27 PM · #4
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

I even tried it with my 10-24 wideangle, which can focus as close as 9". I think the focus point was somewhere near the back of my head.


LOLOL. There's some math you can do to figure this stuff out, but I think the shortest lens you can use with a 12mm extension tube is about 35mm. The focus point will be somewhere inside the lens for anything shorter.

I do, however, have a 5.8mm extension ring that I use with my 20mm lens. It gives me some very interesting effects.

Message edited by author 2013-02-14 15:35:41.
02/14/2013 03:40:07 PM · #5
It's possible to use reversing rings, extension tubes, or whatever, but for a beginner, it's all pretty hard to work with. A dedicated macro lens is going to be much easier.

I think the most extension tubes are *sold* to beginners who are trying out macro for cheap. I think that most extension tubes are *used* by experienced macro photographers who add them to their macro lenses to get bigger than 1:1.

02/14/2013 03:49:43 PM · #6
Originally posted by Ann:

It's possible to use reversing rings, extension tubes, or whatever, but for a beginner, it's all pretty hard to work with. A dedicated macro lens is going to be much easier.

I think the most extension tubes are *sold* to beginners who are trying out macro for cheap. I think that most extension tubes are *used* by experienced macro photographers who add them to their macro lenses to get bigger than 1:1.


Extension tubes and macro lenses essentially do the same thing. They move the optics away from the sensor to increase magnification. The macro lenses do have some features designed in to do things like limit diffraction at small apertures and otherwise optimize performance at high magnification, but the principle is identical.

I use extension tubes with my 85mm f1.8 and it's generally OK and not any more complicated than it was using a dedicated macro lens.
02/14/2013 03:50:56 PM · #7
Also keep in mind that most 50mm macro lenses will not give 1:1 magnification without an extension tube of some sort.
02/14/2013 03:51:19 PM · #8
I have owned both of Canons 100mm macros. Only having to sell them to fund my super lens. I still have my keno tubes.
The non Is 100 is a great way to shoot macro. Very sharp, solid images! Also a bargain price, for what it is. Not the fastest focus, but who cares for macro.
That is the route I would suggest. Once I had my 100mm macro, I used my 85 f1.8 very seldom. So I ended up selling it. This could be a great way to fund your purchase.
Unless you need the speed of the 1.8...

Why not rent the 100mm non IS and some kenko tubes. You could try the tubes on the 85mm and be able to compare to the 100mm macro. Or do a store test shoot. Most places will let you mount lenses to try in store.
Not the most scientific way, but it will give you an idea of performance.

For true macros though, it is hard to beat a dedicated macro lens.
Skip the 50mm macro, it's working distance is too close. Plus it does not do 1:1 magnification, without a converter lens. Another costly add on.....

Good Luck
02/14/2013 04:03:00 PM · #9
I will throw out another option. My macro lens is too big and heavy to travel with, so for travel, I have a Canon 500D close-up lens that I bought on ebay, that I put onto my (Nikon) 70-200 f/4. That takes me to about 1:2, which isn't full macro, but is plenty close for butterflies and flowers, and not too painful to use. I use the 58mm version with a 67-58 step down ring, and it doesn't vignette.

A 250D (or Nikon 6t) would come close to 1:1 with my 70-200 at 200 (it might even do 1:1, not sure). It's harder to work with, though, because the more magnification you have, the shorter your maximum focus distance is.

You can also get those sets of +1, +2, +4 close up filters, but since they're just single element lenses, they *all* have some issues with optical quality. I've tried them, and it's noticeable. The Nikon and Canon ones are achromatic lenses with multiple elements, so optically, they work better.
02/14/2013 04:07:27 PM · #10
I've used just about every variation of lenses, tubes, reversing rings, teleconverters, you name it, for macro. A standard 50mm lens with extension tubes is a very workable combination for moderate macro magnifications. The beggest pain with extension tubes is that once you select the length and mount the lens, your magnification is pretty much set. So you have to know what you want before hand. With a dedicated macro lens, you have focus from infinity to whatever the designed maximum magnification of the lens is (0.5:1 for many 50mm lenses, 1:1 for most "true" macro lenses, 5:1 for the Canon MP-E65).
The best image quality will always be obtained with a dedicated macro lens, although that's not to say you can't get very good images with extension tubes and/or reversed lenses.
02/15/2013 01:57:51 AM · #11
Extension tubes work well with 85 and 50 1.8's, and they can be sorta interesting with a 70-200 (though the weight and separation of the two will make them a bit cumbersome and not the most confidence inspiring). I use extension rings for some things, myself, and I use a dedicated macro or a reversed lens setup for others. The key point to consider with extension rings and that only Fritz noted is they lack infinity focus and have a very shallow area that is in focus, to the extent that it can be difficult to initially space yourself from your subject because everything is a complete blur, and your area of focus is an inch or so. To explain this to another user, I took these illustrative shots. Read through the comments to see what I mean.

A macro lens is far more user friendly, but costs more. Overall, though, it's probably more flexible since you can change your focus from infinity to 1:1, meaning you can use it on subjects that aren't small (like portraits), whereas extension tubes are pretty specialized and can only be used for small objects due to the infinity limit.
02/15/2013 06:49:29 AM · #12
After much research in this topic, I started with extension tubes and reversal rings due to cost. They worked well and provided good results. Then I purchased my first of four macro lenses, the Nikkor 60mm. It was a huge improvement and produced dramatically better results in all parameters. So, I never looked back and now have the 105mm and 200mm dedicated macro lenses too. In addition, I have the 85mm perspective control lens that is also a macro. To support the macro lens, I have two Sigma ring flashes which are excellent. I purchased the adapter rings so these flashes can be mounted on any lens that I have and use them for much more than just macro work.

By the way, Nikon calls them micro lenses, which is perhaps a better word, but arguably far less commonly used compared to the less correct macro term.
02/15/2013 09:18:05 AM · #13
Well BH Photo has a set of Vivitar tubes for $68 bucks. I may try these out just to see if macro is something I might want to shoot, if I seem to like it, then the task of trying to find which lens to go with.
Thanks for all the replys.
02/15/2013 11:45:02 AM · #14
Originally posted by mitchamus:

Well BH Photo has a set of Vivitar tubes for $68 bucks. I may try these out just to see if macro is something I might want to shoot, if I seem to like it, then the task of trying to find which lens to go with.
Thanks for all the replys.


I've not seen the Vivitars in person, but be aware that you should start out using a lighter lens setup to see how sturdy the rings are. Lesser quality ones will flex considerably and let light in, or worse, separate and drop your lens completely. The kenko's are pretty good so far as that goes even with heavy lenses, but you can certainly see the flex still. Just work your way up. The 85 and 50 shouldn't pose an issue though.
02/15/2013 01:16:46 PM · #15
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

The key point to consider with extension rings and that only Fritz noted is they lack infinity focus and have a very shallow area that is in focus, to the extent that it can be difficult to initially space yourself from your subject because everything is a complete blur, and your area of focus is an inch or so.


I can only assume you meant that when extension tubes are used to increase magnification past the "standard" does DOF drop drastically? DOF is independent of the lens used.
02/15/2013 01:57:27 PM · #16
Originally posted by Dudski:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

The key point to consider with extension rings and that only Fritz noted is they lack infinity focus and have a very shallow area that is in focus, to the extent that it can be difficult to initially space yourself from your subject because everything is a complete blur, and your area of focus is an inch or so.


I can only assume you meant that when extension tubes are used to increase magnification past the "standard" does DOF drop drastically? DOF is independent of the lens used.


Well, yeah. But anytime you mount an extension tube you will drop your DOF because you are effectively compressing the focal distance beyond the "standard." You can't physically mount an extension tube and get the same "standard" DOF.
02/15/2013 02:04:36 PM · #17
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Dudski:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

The key point to consider with extension rings and that only Fritz noted is they lack infinity focus and have a very shallow area that is in focus, to the extent that it can be difficult to initially space yourself from your subject because everything is a complete blur, and your area of focus is an inch or so.


I can only assume you meant that when extension tubes are used to increase magnification past the "standard" does DOF drop drastically? DOF is independent of the lens used.


Well, yeah. But anytime you mount an extension tube you will drop your DOF because you are effectively compressing the focal distance beyond the "standard." You can't physically mount an extension tube and get the same "standard" DOF.


You sure about that? This goes against what I understand.

And what do you mean by focal distance? One plane is in focus, the rest appears in focus due to the circle of confusion.

ETA: I agree with the second point - that once you mount an extension tube you can't get the same DOF, but I understand this to be simply due to the fact that you are increasing the magnification.

ETA again: ah, I think I understand what you mean.. that you lose the ability to focus at different planes, and you're limited to 1 plane a certain distance away from the lens. On the other hand, given a certain magnification, DOF is independent of how that magnification is achieved (via macro lens or extension tube). Agreed?

Message edited by author 2013-02-15 14:18:32.
02/15/2013 02:14:59 PM · #18
Originally posted by Dudski:

[...once you mount an extension tube you can't get the same DOF, but I understand this to be simply due to the fact that you are increasing the magnification.


Yes. The "standard" DoF calculations fall apart at as we approach macro magnifications. Also, the effective f number changes as you add extension tubes (it gets larger).
02/15/2013 02:17:00 PM · #19
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Dudski:

[...once you mount an extension tube you can't get the same DOF, but I understand this to be simply due to the fact that you are increasing the magnification.


Yes. The "standard" DoF calculations fall apart at as we approach macro magnifications. Also, the effective f number changes as you add extension tubes (it gets larger).


And into diffraction we gooooo!

This is so much more fun that writing reports.
02/15/2013 02:35:16 PM · #20
Originally posted by Dudski:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Dudski:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

The key point to consider with extension rings and that only Fritz noted is they lack infinity focus and have a very shallow area that is in focus, to the extent that it can be difficult to initially space yourself from your subject because everything is a complete blur, and your area of focus is an inch or so.


I can only assume you meant that when extension tubes are used to increase magnification past the "standard" does DOF drop drastically? DOF is independent of the lens used.


Well, yeah. But anytime you mount an extension tube you will drop your DOF because you are effectively compressing the focal distance beyond the "standard." You can't physically mount an extension tube and get the same "standard" DOF.


You sure about that? This goes against what I understand.

And what do you mean by focal distance? One plane is in focus, the rest appears in focus due to the circle of confusion.

ETA: I agree with the second point - that once you mount an extension tube you can't get the same DOF, but I understand this to be simply due to the fact that you are increasing the magnification.

ETA again: ah, I think I understand what you mean.. that you lose the ability to focus at different planes, and you're limited to 1 plane a certain distance away from the lens. On the other hand, given a certain magnification, DOF is independent of how that magnification is achieved (via macro lens or extension tube). Agreed?


Yes, DOF doesn't strictly depend upon using extension tubes, but once you mount them, you are literally compressing the field so your working DoF will decrease assuming all else remains the same. It's like increasing the focal length of your lens in some senses. Because your focal distance is changed, your magnification is changed, and your DoF is as well. That's the whole point of extension tubes.

ETA: To clarify, focal distance is the distance to the subject that you are focusing upon. Depth of field is a separate calculation, but is related to focal distance. This can readily been seen by focusing on a subject at 200mm at the minimum focus distance vs the max. Your DoF decreases in such scenarios.

Message edited by author 2013-02-15 14:38:58.
02/15/2013 02:38:58 PM · #21
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:



Yes, DOF doesn't strictly depend upon using extension tubes, but once you mount them, you are literally compressing the field so your working DoF will decrease assuming all else remains the same. It's like increasing the focal length of your lens in some senses. Because your focal distance is changed, your magnification is changed, and your DoF is as well. That's the whole point of extension tubes.


Indeed x2.

Message edited by author 2013-02-15 14:39:58.
02/15/2013 04:08:53 PM · #22
Originally posted by kirbic:

Also, the effective f number changes as you add extension tubes (it gets larger).

Smaller, actually. f/2 is MUCH larger than f/22. So it's very confusing to say "2 is a smaller number than 22"... Think of the numbers as reciprocals (1/2 is much bigger than 1/22) and you've got terminology that makes sense.
02/15/2013 04:58:30 PM · #23
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Also, the effective f number changes as you add extension tubes (it gets larger).

Smaller, actually. f/2 is MUCH larger than f/22. So it's very confusing to say "2 is a smaller number than 22"... Think of the numbers as reciprocals (1/2 is much bigger than 1/22) and you've got terminology that makes sense.


We're both correct. As the f-number (or ratio) gets numerically larger, the aperture gets smaller. In the case of extension tubes, as an aperture of constant physical size is moved farther from the focal plane, the f-ratio gets (numerically) larger.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:39:17 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:39:17 AM EDT.