Beginner Before I splash the cash

H

Haydn Clarke

Messages
87
Edit My Images
No
a quick thought.

I recently bought a 35mm F/1.8 prime to use with my Nikon D3300. I'm loving the lens and learning the joys of F/1.8 but I have a slight buyers remorse that I didn't go for the 40mm Micro lens they do, as the ability for close up and macro would have been a great bonus.

So, my question: before I lash out the £250 for the micro lens, could I get similar results by simply using extension tubes with my 35mm prime?

I know nothing about extension tubes but I've just been reading that there is no loss of IQ due to there being no elements in the tubes. I'd like to know for sure if this is the case and also, does the reduction in focusing distance directly correlate to the length of the tube? Say, a 30mm extension= 30mm reduction in focus distance?

If this is the case then the tubes must surely be my best option, given that I should be able to use them on other lenses?

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
•


Neither IMHO!

I use extension tubes to get a greater magnification but
I would never use a macro lens under +/- 105 mm so not
to cast shadows on my subject.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


Neither IMHO!

I use extension tubes to get a greater magnification but
I would never use a macro lens under +/- 105 mm so not
to cast shadows on my subject.
Click to expand...
Seconded though on aps-c 105mm can sometimes be on the longish side. I do like mine a lot. It also makes a good portrait lens.
 
soeren said:
105mm can sometimes be on the longish side.
Click to expand...


Which is not a negative point, in my experience, as
it will render a more pleasurable perspective of the
subject. Granted, longer focal length have less DoF
but this does not affect sharpness. :cool:
 
I was thinking of the 40mm Micro more in terms of a prime lens with ability of getting slightly closer to smaller subjects (such as back lit flowers) rather than an outright macro lens.

Thanks for taking the time to answer anyhow.
 
Stick with the 35mm!
I'd buy a sigma 105 if I wanted to do macro
 
HJC1972 said:
So, my question: before I lash out the £250 for the micro lens, could I get similar results by simply using extension tubes with my 35mm prime?

I know nothing about extension tubes but I've just been reading that there is no loss of IQ due to there being no elements in the tubes. I'd like to know for sure if this is the case and also, does the reduction in focusing distance directly correlate to the length of the tube? Say, a 30mm extension= 30mm reduction in focus distance?

If this is the case then the tubes must surely be my best option, given that I should be able to use them on other lenses?

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

In my opinion extension tubes are the best purchase you can make if you want to get into macro especially with their ability to be used with a number of different lenses.

I have 2 sets of Kenko extension tubes and they are excellent for enabling me to get macro shots with a number of lenses, including my 50mm f1.8 up to my 70-300mm L lens.

These are Canon lenses but your Nikon lenses would also behave exactly the same.

Amazon does a range of tubes at good prices with good reviews of them:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_s...s=aps&field-keywords=polaroid+extension+tubes

These are auto tubes which mean you keep all the auto functions available on your camera and lenses - essential in my opinion.

Hope this helps you.
 
Last edited:
Given that your (OP's) intended subjects are flowers rather than insects and backlit rather than frontlit, I'd give the tubes option a try since they're relatively cheap. If they don't do the job then shift them on and try the 40mm Micro but be aware that the 40mm is f/2.8 rather than 1.8.
 
There is more than one way to achieve close focus (or higher magnification). There are close-up filters (which are better used on telephoto lenses) and extension tubes (which are better used on shorter focal lengths). Then there are people who use helicoids (extension tube on steroids I suppose :LOL:), there people who reverse mount (old) lenses :cool:
Or you could buy a macro lens but where is the fun in that ;)

Anyway it is correct that extension tubes don't have any glass in them and hence won't affect IQ. But some (non-macro) lenses are not designed for close focussing and won't perform as well at macro distance as do at other focus distances or infinity. For example the Sony zeiss FE 55mm is considered one of the sharpest lenses nearing zeiss otus'. But at macro distance on ext. tubes its not at all any g

To answer your (OP's) question, starting with extension tubes is a good starting point into macro photography. Its a cheap but effective way of getting into it. Spend the saved cash on lighting which will make more of a difference IMO.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the additional information here. That's a great help.

Back to my original post though:

Does the decreased distance between the lens and the camera diretly correlate to the decreased focusing distance at the front end. So all three extension tube attached (12+20+36 = 68mm) means a decreased distance of 68mm between subject and the previous minimum focus distance?
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
Which is not a negative point, in my experience, as
it will render a more pleasurable perspective of the
subject. Granted, longer focal length have less DoF
but this does not affect sharpness. :cool:
Click to expand...
Well no not always but my comment was meant as a word of caution (spl?) as working distance can be a problem in more cramped places.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
???
Click to expand...
Spelling,. Unsure if it was correct.
Kodiak Qc said:
Must admit I never met such situation!
Click to expand...
I have a couple of times since moving from film to aps-c digital
On 24x36 the 105 is a super lens rendering backgrounds nicely.
55-60mm tends to make them busy with not so nice bokeh and the 200mm make boring too even backgrounds. On aps-c I find the 105mm moving slightly up against the 200mm territory though I still find its a great lens.
 
Don't forget by adding extension tubes you also lose 'light gathering' power.

50mm extension on a 50mm lens will cost you two stops! f/2.8 becomes f/5.6 but, you will get 1:1 reproduction ratio :)
 
chuckles said:
Don't forget by adding extension tubes you also lose 'light gathering' power.

50mm extension on a 50mm lens will cost you two stops! f/2.8 becomes f/5.6 but, you will get 1:1 reproduction ratio :)
Click to expand...
Well you'll most likely end up at f/5,6 anyway even with a true macro lens since the extension at 1:1 is about the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top