is it possible to use extension tubes without flash

[LCPete]

Seeing Chris,s superb damselfly close up portrait has inspired me to have a go when they are out in the spring
I've got a set of Jessops extension tubes and they should be perfect for getting up close with my sigma 105
Would I get enough light to use them without flash though, if I use a tripod?
I know that I will lose about one stop of light with a set of tubes on and probably isn't possible to get a decent shutter speed but I'd like to try
I prefer natural light to flash, ive got a flashgun but never use it
Last year I was lucky enough to get nice shots of damselflies with dewdrops and it would be brilliant to be able to get really close up and still get the same light I don't think that it would be the same with flash

 

[vetonbike]

It is possible but will depend on the speed and amount of any movement of the subject and the depth of field you require. Suck it and see. The more you try the more good shots you will get

 

[LCPete]

It is possible but will depend on the speed and amount of any movement of the subject and the depth of field you require. Suck it and see. The more you try the more good shots you will get

Thanks Melvyn yes you're right
I will have a go in the garden when we get a still day and see how I get on

 

[ChrisA]

I think you can if you have a still subject and a tripod to support. The shutter speed with them on will be the telling point. If you get one cold then you may be able to stack with the tripod if careful.

Flash does help - but with the dew I think you would need some good diffusion. Flash makes it easier hand held. If I recall the damselfly I took was on a tripod at the time. I know it was still as I had a card behind. In fact several - I had rescued the thing from the ground after some heavy rain, and it needed time to dry out the wings. It was shot with flash.

 

[LCPete]

Thanks Chris sounds like its doable
think that I'll nip up to the zoo butterfly house and give it a try wont get the light but it will be good practice
I need it I have only tried the tubes once
I bought them years ago and tried once and found then too difficult to use
I guess that I will be best trying it on windless still days for damselflies though

 

[TimmyG]

Just get up early, and hopefully you'll find some before they become active or warmed up. Alternatively, hope for lots of light and pump up the iso.

I'm pretty sure this was with an extension tube but on my crappy 55-250. I managed to get to 1/250th with ISO up to 1600. Not the best shot ever, but I was pretty pleased with the results as this isn't my favourite lens...

Blue-tailed Damselfly (Infuscans form) by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

 

[LCPete]

Thanks Tim nice shot too
Early morning good idea I probably will have to up the ISO as you say to get the shutter speed high enough and use a tripod
What started me wondering if it was possible to do high magnification natural light shots is that you just don't see any people all seem to use flash
I'm hoping to get the sort of magnification that Chris used for his damselfly avatar portrait, I'm guessing 2 or 3 to 1
Maybe it's just not possible to get enough light at higher mag without flash but I will give it a try anyway

 

[LCPete]

I've been looking on Google and apparently the Raynox DCR 250 add on lens gives higher magnification without loosing any light that may be my best bet
I know a few people on here use them to add onto a "normal" non macro lens
I will have to read up a bit more I think
would one of those on a sigma 105 or Canon 100mm macro give enough magnification to do a damselfly face close up?

 

[GardenersHelper]

I've been looking on Google and apparently the Raynox DCR 250 add on lens gives higher magnification without loosing any light that may be my best bet
I know a few people on here use them to add onto a "normal" non macro lens
I will have to read up a bit more I think
would one of those on a sigma 105 or Canon 100mm macro give enough magnification to do a damselfly face close up?

According to the measurements I recorded in the table in this post, you can get to about 2:1 with the Raynox 250 on the Sigma 105 on APS-C, i.e. a scene width of about 12mm.

 

[LCPete]

According to the measurements I recorded in the table in this post, you can get to about 2:1 with the Raynox 250 on the Sigma 105 on APS-C, i.e. a scene width of about 12mm.

thanks Nick I've just had another read through of that thread it's very helpful and interesting
I'd forgotten about the reduction in working distance it will be more difficult to get that close to damselflies but on wet or cool days should be possible
A scene width of 12mm looks perfect for a face on shot of a damselfly and I should be able to get small bees and flies etc too
it looks like the raynox fits onto the front of the lens rather than screws into the filter thread so should be able to use it on other lenses too
fitting on the front is handy as I won't have to remove the lens like with tubes which would be awkward in the rain

 

[LCPete]

I have gone for in the end the Marumi achromat the 200
it's a slightly lower magnification than the ranox so should be easier to use too
the Raynox is excellent but apparently the Marumi is slightly sharper especially at the edges
it should arrive at the end of the week can't wait to try it out
thanks for the help just got to wait for spring now

 

[GardenersHelper]

I have gone for in the end the Marumi achromat the 200
it's a slightly lower magnification than the ranox so should be easier to use too
the Raynox is excellent but apparently the Marumi is slightly sharper especially at the edges

I have the Marumi 200. I don't use it because of the results of a comparison I did with the Raynox 150 (which is +4.8 diopters compared to the Marumi 200's +5 diopters, and +8 diopters for the Raynox 250). The test is documented here. (You can click on the composite image and the individual images to see larger versions, and you can then click on the "1:1 View 100%" or "View Original" button to see them at the size they were posted on that site, which is 1600x1200 for the individual images and 2600x1000 for the composite image. There is also a link that will take you to the Flickr album to see the individual images full size, but I don't think you'll need to do that because the differences are very easy to see.)

 

[LCPete]

I have the Marumi 200. I don't use it because of the results of a comparison I did with the Raynox 150 (which is +4.8 diopters compared to the Marumi 200's +5 diopters, and +8 diopters for the Raynox 250). The test is documented here. (You can click on the composite image and the individual images to see larger versions, and you can then click on the "1:1 View 100%" or "View Original" button to see them at the size they were posted on that site, which is 1600x1200 for the individual images and 2600x1000 for the composite image. There is also a link that will take you to the Flickr album to see the individual images full size, but I don't think you'll need to do that because the differences are very easy to see.)

Oh no I should have asked on here before deciding !
I see what you mean it doesn't seem to work very well with your FZ200 the ranox looks much better
the reviews that I found were very varied some people found the ranox better and others the marumi, the marumi seemed to be better on shorter macro primes and the ranox better on 200mm zoom lenses
have you tried the marumi on your 70D?
I ordered it from amazon tho so when it comes I will give it a good test on my Canon 100L and 7D and if it's not good I will be able to send it back and get the raynox

 

[GardenersHelper]

have you tried the marumi on your 70D?

No. I'll do a comparison of the Marumi 200 and the Raynox 150 on the Sigma 105. I'll put the results in my Journey thread I think so I can keep that sort of stuff together. I'll try and get it done this evening, but these comparisons can take a surprising amount of time to do and write up - there can sometimes be unexpected complications/reworks/rethinks/adjustments etc.

 

[LCPete]

No. I'll do a comparison of the Marumi 200 and the Raynox 150 on the Sigma 105. I'll put the results in my Journey thread I think so I can keep that sort of stuff together. I'll try and get it done this evening, but these comparisons can take a surprising amount of time to do and write up - there can sometimes be unexpected complications/reworks/rethinks/adjustments etc.

Thanks Nick that's brilliant
Will be really interesting to see the difference between the two

 

[Tintin124]

I'm sure your question as been answered above.

But most definitely yes is the answer I would give especially if you get the lighting as I did in my garden last summer.

 

[LCPete]

I'm sure your question as been answered above.

But most definitely yes is the answer I would give especially if you get the lighting as I did in my garden last summer.

Thanks Bryn yes it looks like it's possible, am going to try anyway
getting excited now for next season but its ages away yet!!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thanks Nick that's brilliant
Will be really interesting to see the difference between the two

It may take a little while I'm afraid. I've done a couple of test runs and I've got some results I don't yet understand. I think there may be something wrong with my testing methodology. I don't yet know whether that would undercut the results of the comparison using the FZ200 that I linked to.

It may turn out that the Marumi is better than I thought, which if true would be good news for both of us (the Marumi appeals to me because it has a larger diameter than the Raynox lenses and has less vignetting, and this increases the range of magnifications I can use without changing the achromat, which would be a definite advantage for my way of working).

More in a day or three, hopefully, unless I get completely bogged down!

 

[Phal]

Extension tubes themselves don't cause any loss of light unlike teleconverters which do.

Damselflies are easy enough to get semi decent shots of with 100mm in my experience and you can get pretty close if you're patient Dragonflies are a bit more jumpy though on the whole although I did find one that didn't seem too scared... he landed right in front of me a few times and then landed on my head when I got closer :|

 

[LCPete]

It may take a little while I'm afraid. I've done a couple of test runs and I've got some results I don't yet understand. I think there may be something wrong with my testing methodology. I don't yet know whether that would undercut the results of the comparison using the FZ200 that I linked to.

It may turn out that the Marumi is better than I thought, which if true would be good news for both of us (the Marumi appeals to me because it has a larger diameter than the Raynox lenses and has less vignetting, and this increases the range of magnifications I can use without changing the achromat, which would be a definite advantage for my way of working).

More in a day or three, hopefully, unless I get completely bogged down!

Thanks very much Nick for taking the trouble to do the test it's really appreciated
it's sounding promising for the marumi
Vignetting was one of the things that concerned me with the raynox
I'm hoping to be able to use the achromat on several of my lenses it would be great if I could leave it in my bag for those times like on holiday that I don't always carry a macro lens I would be able to stick the acromat on my 17 50 for example if I came across any bugs

 

[LCPete]

Extension tubes themselves don't cause any loss of light unlike teleconverters which do.

Damselflies are easy enough to get semi decent shots of with 100mm in my experience and you can get pretty close if you're patient Dragonflies are a bit more jumpy though on the whole although I did find one that didn't seem too scared... he landed right in front of me a few times and then landed on my head when I got closer :|

Thanks I didn't realise that about extension tubes not loosing light
I do have a set but struggled to get on with them and it was a pain taking the lens off each time to fit the tubes
a screw in filter sounds easier to use
I do already photograph damselflies with my 100mm macro I just wanted to get a bit closer and do portrait shots

 

[GardenersHelper]

Extension tubes themselves don't cause any loss of light unlike teleconverters which do.

According to this Wikipedia article, extension tubes cause loss of light. And the second post in this thread at POTN gives a simple worked example.

 

[Phal]

According to this Wikipedia article, extension tubes cause loss of light. And the second post in this thread at POTN gives a simple worked example.

I guess it's possible that they technically cause some loss of light but not on a similar level to teleconverters. There's no lens in an extension tube so light just passes through unhindered.

With my 25mm tube, my Canon 100mm F2.8L is still an F2.8 lens but if I had a 1.4 TC on then it would F4

 

[GardenersHelper]

I guess it's possible that they technically cause some loss of light but not on a similar level to teleconverters. There's no lens in an extension tube so light just passes through unhindered.

With my 25mm tube, my Canon 100mm F2.8L is still an F2.8 lens but if I had a 1.4 TC on then it would F4

Whether or not there is glass in the way doesn't appear to be the issue. It seems that for a given change in focal length, the light loss is the same for a tube or TC. For example, the last but one post (on the second page of the thread I linked to above) says "A 1.4x TC inflicts a 1 stop loss of light because your 200 f/2 with 100 mm aperture diameter is now a 280 mm lens with the same 100 mm aperture for an f-no of 280/100 or 2.8. If you put 80 mm of extension tubes on that same 200 mm lens, you're again seeing 280/100 or f/2.8."

This would make the effective aperture of your 100mm F2.8 with 25mm tube somewhere between F2.8 and F4 (F3.5 if my algebra and arithmetic are right).

Effective aperture = Effective focal length / lens diameter, so for the 100L by itself,

2.8 = 100 / lens diameter.

So the lens diameter = 100 / 2.8 = 35.714.

So with the 25mm tube on the 100L,

Effective aperture = (100+25) / 35.714 = 3.5

 

[Phal]

Whether or not there is glass in the way doesn't appear to be the issue. It seems that for a given change in focal length, the light loss is the same for a tube or TC. For example, the last but one post (on the second page of the thread I linked to above) says "A 1.4x TC inflicts a 1 stop loss of light because your 200 f/2 with 100 mm aperture diameter is now a 280 mm lens with the same 100 mm aperture for an f-no of 280/100 or 2.8. If you put 80 mm of extension tubes on that same 200 mm lens, you're again seeing 280/100 or f/2.8."

This would make the effective aperture of your 100mm F2.8 with 25mm tube somewhere between F2.8 and F4 (F3.5 if my algebra and arithmetic are right).

Effective aperture = Effective focal length / lens diameter, so for the 100L by itself,

2.8 = 100 / lens diameter.

So the lens diameter = 100 / 2.8 = 35.714.

So with the 25mm tube on the 100L,

Effective aperture = (100+25) / 35.714 = 3.5

Looks like you are correct hehe

I think my brain took a few different pieces of data and made me believe that there was no light loss. There should be no image quality loss unlike a teleconverter but it does seem to result in some light loss.

With the Canon 25mm tube, the 70d I had at the time didn't seem to be any different with respect to apertures but I'm guessing it must have been compensating the exposure lengths (I often shoot AV mode with my macro lens)

Overall the OP should still be able to get decent shots with natural light but might be restricted to slightly wider apertures than he's used to? With my 100mm F2.8 lens I tend to be limited to F9-F11 in natural light because I want to keep the exposure times reasonable and the ISO down. This year will be my first with an external flash that I can use off camera so it should be interesting

 

[GardenersHelper]

With the Canon 25mm tube, the 70d I had at the time didn't seem to be any different with respect to apertures but I'm guessing it must have been compensating the exposure lengths (I often shoot AV mode with my macro lens)

Yes, I doubt you'd notice it in Av. Well, I certainly wouldn't anyway.

Overall the OP should still be able to get decent shots with natural light but might be restricted to slightly wider apertures than he's used to? With my 100mm F2.8 lens I tend to be limited to F9-F11 in natural light because I want to keep the exposure times reasonable and the ISO down. This year will be my first with an external flash that I can use off camera so it should be interesting

I'm sure it will be interesting. I hope it works well for you. I have an on-off relationship with flash. I much prefer natural light, and I almost always use natural light for flowers, but I've been using flash more over the past couple of years for invertebrates, especially for higher magnifications. I've still got mixed feelings about it though.

 

[Phal]

Yes, I doubt you'd notice it in Av. Well, I certainly wouldn't anyway.



I'm sure it will be interesting. I hope it works well for you. I have an on-off relationship with flash. I much prefer natural light, and I almost always use natural light for flowers, but I've been using flash more over the past couple of years for invertebrates, especially for higher magnifications. I've still got mixed feelings about it though.

There's definitely a reason people spend a lot of time trying different ways to diffuse their flashes etc and as far as I'm concerned, that's just to achieve as natural a look as possible. Without flashes it's difficult to get those narrow apertures that allow you to not only freeze any movement they have but to also fit the whole subject in (if that's what you want).

I've only used natural light in the few years I've had my 100mm lens so I guess it's time to experiment

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thanks very much Nick for taking the trouble to do the test it's really appreciated
it's sounding promising for the marumi

I'm still not there with the comparisons. I've had to be doing other things most of the day, but I did another two comparison runs this morning, being even more careful about how I did them, but I got inconsistent results again.

I'm hoping to be able to use the achromat on several of my lenses it would be great if I could leave it in my bag for those times like on holiday that I don't always carry a macro lens I would be able to stick the acromat on my 17 50 for example if I came across any bugs

With the Marumi 200 on my 18-55 STM I measured the following (with a caveat, see below):

At 18mm, max scene width about 290mm at a working distance of about 25cm

At 55mm, min scene width about 40mm at a working distance of about 6.5cm. (The 18-55 STM is marked as a "Macro" lens. I'm not sure why, because I measured the minimum scene width with the bare lens at about 59mm, which is less than 1:2. However, with a minimum working distance of about 11cm, for both 18 and 55mm focal length, it may focus closer and give more magnification than your 17-50).

It will be interesting to see how the numbers work out for you, and whether that results in something useful for your light version kitbag.

Caveat. I'm going to write something up on my Journey thread about the comparison tests I've been doing, starting with something I've just discovered while doing the measurements for this post. It may help explain why I've been getting such inconsistent results in my comparison tests. I think the numbers in this post are ok though.

 

[LCPete]

I'm still not there with the comparisons. I've had to be doing other things most of the day, but I did another two comparison runs this morning, being even more careful about how I did them, but I got inconsistent results again.



With the Marumi 200 on my 18-55 STM I measured the following (with a caveat, see below):

At 18mm, max scene width about 290mm at a working distance of about 25cm

At 55mm, min scene width about 40mm at a working distance of about 6.5cm. (The 18-55 STM is marked as a "Macro" lens. I'm not sure why, because I measured the minimum scene width with the bare lens at about 59mm, which is less than 1:2. However, with a minimum working distance of about 11cm, for both 18 and 55mm focal length, it may focus closer and give more magnification than your 17-50).

It will be interesting to see how the numbers work out for you, and whether that results in something useful for your light version kitbag.

Caveat. I'm going to write something up on my Journey thread about the comparison tests I've been doing, starting with something I've just discovered while doing the measurements for this post. It may help explain why I've been getting such inconsistent results in my comparison tests. I think the numbers in this post are ok though.

Thanks again Nick for doing the tests
Looking at those numbers it does look like the marumi will give enough magnification to shoot insects with my 17-50
the marumi will be handy to keep in my bag when I'm just carrying the 17-50 Tamron
I will be able to photograph any insects that may turn up

I know you're still doing the tests but does the marumi give reasonable quality results?

 

[GardenersHelper]

I know you're still doing the tests but does the marumi give reasonable quality results?

I have two test series where the Marumi does significantly worse than the Raynox across the full range of apertures from f/2.8 to f/22 (clear cut and similar to that FZ200 thread I originally linked to). But in the other two test series it is more evenly matched, with the Marumi sometimes doing better than the Raynox, at least in some part of the images. I don't yet understand how it is possible to get such different results in quite tightly controlled tests.

I think that part of the problem is setting up the tests so that the subject (a coin) is exactly parallel to the plane of the sensor. If it isn't, and the rig shifts just slightly when I swap the achromats, then the results can get really difficult to interpret, so much so as to be completely inconclusive - and they certainly cast doubt on the "clear cut" results.

And there is another problem to do with working distances and focusing. I'm just about to write that one up in my journey thread. So I need to do yet more tests. Until then, it's all up in the air as far as I'm concerned. (And it does matter to me as well as you - I'd really like to use the Marumi because of the vignetting issue.)

 

[LCPete]

I have two test series where the Marumi does significantly worse than the Raynox across the full range of apertures from f/2.8 to f/22 (clear cut and similar to that FZ200 thread I originally linked to). But in the other two test series it is more evenly matched, with the Marumi sometimes doing better than the Raynox, at least in some part of the images. I don't yet understand how it is possible to get such different results in quite tightly controlled tests.

I think that part of the problem is setting up the tests so that the subject (a coin) is exactly parallel to the plane of the sensor. If it isn't, and the rig shifts just slightly when I swap the achromats, then the results can get really difficult to interpret, so much so as to be completely inconclusive - and they certainly cast doubt on the "clear cut" results.

And there is another problem to do with working distances and focusing. I'm just about to write that one up in my journey thread. So I need to do yet more tests. Until then, it's all up in the air as far as I'm concerned. (And it does matter to me as well as you - I'd really like to use the Marumi because of the vignetting issue.)

Thanks Nick
It must be tricky to set up repeatable tests with the depth of field being so small
I'm wondering if the two achromats are designed a bit differently the raynox maybe designed to be used on a variety of cameras and lenses as its got a universal fitting and the marumi optimised for use on short SLR lenses as its got a specific screw fitting
I think I read somewhere that the Marumi works best on lenses roughly between 50 to 200 mm
I can't remember where I read that tho
hopefully mine will arrive in the next few days and I'll try it out on my canon 100 macro and 70-200 f4
I've also ordered a stepping ring so that I can use it on the sigma 105
I will let you know how I get on with the Marumi

 

[GardenersHelper]

With the Marumi 200 on my 18-55 STM I measured the following (with a caveat, see below):

At 18mm, max scene width about 290mm at a working distance of about 25cm

At 55mm, min scene width about 40mm at a working distance of about 6.5cm.

I should have mentioned that I get quite severe vignetting with the Marumi on the 18-55 at the wide end, so I couldn't actually get a 290mm max scene width - more like 230mm having cropped to avoid the vignetting. However, the 18-55 takes a 58mm filter and the Marumi is only 52mm. Presumably you are getting one of the larger diameter Marumi 200's.

 

[LCPete]

I should have mentioned that I get quite severe vignetting with the Marumi on the 18-55 at the wide end, so I couldn't actually get a 290mm max scene width - more like 230mm having cropped to avoid the vignetting. However, the 18-55 takes a 58mm filter and the Marumi is only 52mm. Presumably you are getting one of the larger diameter Marumi 200's.

Yes I'm getting a 67mm thread size
this will fit onto my Canon 100 macro, tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200 F 4 and the Sigma is a 58mm thread so that I've ordered a stepping ring
its handy that several of my lenses are a 67mm thread