extension tubes vs raynox?

B

brman

Messages
492
Name
Toby
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently been playing around with an old pentax 50mm lens reversed on my D300 and been getting some ok but not brilliant shots.
For example.....
Another fly.... by tobyjm, on Flickr
and
Another fly by tobyjm, on Flickr

My main problem is that I am having to manually open the aperture (using a finger on the aperture lever on the lens), focus, release the aperture then take the shot. Doing this hand held is very hit and miss!
There might be other factors but I think the combination of not getting the focus point right and camera shake means I am having to excessively sharpen the images to get the impact I would like. Even then I think I am losing fine detail.
I've tried just leaving the lens stopped down but I find I just cannot see well enough to focus.

So, I am thinking of trying auto extension tubes or something like a raynox lens. Unfortunately budget is very tight so I cannot afford to try both, hence wanting a bit of advice first.......

1) At the moment I am getting about 1.5" across a frame with the subject about 4.5" from the lens. (the pictures above are fairly heavily cropped) I'd like to more magnification but without getting closer if possible.
Any pros/cons of the raynox vs extension tubes for that?
2) I am also shooting at around f11 as the lens appears to go soft beyond that. But at f11 I am also struggling with depth of field.
Will I find it any different with a raynox or extensions tubes or is dof just down to magnification and f number?
3) what sort of subject distance are people getting with their setups? I am finding that 4" is about as close as I can get before scaring the subject away.....
4) I have a few lenses I could use with either (anything from the kit 18-55 to a 70-300) but I suspect the sharpest is likely to be my 50mm f1.8. Any advice on what would be the best focal length to start playing with or is it just a case of trial and error?

Any other advice to help me choose?

Sorry for the rambling question, I have read a lot of the threads here but there is so much choice I am struggling to know where to start ;)
 
If you are a canon user can get this to control your lenses electronically when reversed.

http://srb-photographic.co.uk/canon-eos-auto-focus-reverse-lens-adaptor-5904-p.asp

Raynox requires smaller apertures tubes so flash can become a requirement but tubes will just use glass on lens but can cause light bounce which will give images a white mist. (Not experienced this effect with expensive kenko tubes)

4) is a common misconception the 18-55mm is a very sharp lens for macro. Sample shots on Flickr and below link.

BTW I have Tamron 90mm VC, 50mm 1.8, 55-250 mk1, 18-55mm, raynox 202 and 250 so can offer more than the lens I have is great comments you will soon get.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/we-need-you-in-draft-want-to-get-into-macro.551944/

Also with my 18-55mm setup I get a scene width down to 5mm. :)

Sharpness of kit lens!

Night Bugging-2401-13 by bthomas124, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Just a note that I havent had the mist problem with the cheaper (£50) Polaroid electronic tubes :) Im running a canon setup though, so not sure how it all works on nikon kit, sorry.

Raynox would be your cheaper setup again (£38 from amazon and clips onto a lot of different lenses) and ebay tubes would be cheaper at £10 but I might stay clear of those (I have a couple of sets without issue) but I've been reading a few people who have slapped on a larger lens (200mm or more) and then the pins snap. I imagine it doesn't matter about camera make with the raynox as its a clip-on type

As bryn says above, the kit lens can produce pretty great shots, amazing in fact. Glad I havent got rid of my kit lens and I wont after seeing bryn's shots with it.

TBH @brman , I think your fly shots are really good (y)

Raynox and a flash fitted with a DIY diffuser, I can easily shoot at F11 or higher if there's plenty of light.

If you're really really tight on a budget, then £10 tubes is probably the only other choice you'll have unless you can get hold of a used raynox but with the cheap tubes, dont go shoving heavy lenses on there and be gentle when fitting everything together. You will lose all electronic options with tubes though. I cant say anything about Nikon sorry, but Im sure it would be approx all the same :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Bryn and Carl.

I am a Nikon man so I don't think the auto reversing lens option is available to me. I did read that "want to get into macro" thread. Very helpful but I think it stops short of really getting into the pros and cons of tubes, vs raynox vs reversed lenses etc.

I do have some very cheap manual tubes which I have tried with the reversed lens. For some reason I have never tried them with a lens the right way round. Probably because of the lack of aperture control which just frustrated me. I think at that point I didn't have any lenses with manual aperature control either.
I guess I should experiment with them again if only to see the affect on magnification and light.

I did have the misting affect with my tubes but managed to mostly fix it with some black card rolled up inside plus a black card aperture to reduce stray light bouncing around.

Bryn: that night bugging pic. Was it with a raynox of tubes (or both)? What sort of aperature was it at?

If I was to get a raynox which is a good one to start with? I have seen the 250 mentioned a bit, is that a good bet?

Thanks Carl for the complement on my pics. I don't find the 2nd one too bad (although it could have done with a lot more magnification) but the 1st one bugs me (excuse the pun...). I had to do a lot of processing to get it that sharp and I think it shows. But that was still the best picture out of about 50 of that subject.

I am perhaps worrying about my kit too much where it is probably practice that will have most benefit but I would really like some auto aperture control as I am finding that very frustrating.
 
The night bugging shot is F11 and shot with reversed 18-55mm and was meant to highlight the amazing quality of a kit lens.

I can dig out some raynox pics if you want. :)

I personally would use raynox over tubes and I do have the kenko ones.

250 is a good start but if your not confident then 150.

Unfortunately that post is still in draft. But thanks for feedback.
 
Toby, are you holding open the aperture due to lack of light when trying to focus? Or is this the only way you can get the desired aperture setting when taking the shot (sorry I am not overly familiar with Nikon lenses).

If the latter, you may be able to fix the aperture of your Nikon lens before reversing it by holding down the DoF preview button (if there is one) prior to removing it from the camera body and mounting it backwards.

If you are doing it for the former, the above probably won't make much sense and can safely be ignored.

FWIW I think you are getting some good results so far, but always room for improvements.
 
Bryn: Thanks for that, sounds like a raynox 250 might be a good investment but I guess I should play with my manual tubes a bit first.

Tim: Holding open the aperture as I cannot see to focus otherwise. It is actually a pentax lens I have used but Nikon are the same. ie. sprung loaded to close the aperature, pushing the lever opens it. This is the case with lenses with manual aperture control. The 18-55 kit lens is as you describe I think.

fwiw, this is my macro setup at the moment. the diffuser is just a single tissue over a paper hood. I did try to rig up a bent paperclip to help move the lever but it needs something a bit more technical ;)
macro rig by tobyjm, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top