Extention tubes or the real mc-coy?

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a fast prime like the Canon 50 F/1.4 USM for shallow depth of field and low light usability, but I also enjoy close-up photography or macro although I don't own a macro lens ether, I was thinking of getting a canon 25mm extention tube to use with the canon 50 F/1.4 USM and my canon 15-85 is usm, but I'm wandering if the results would be any good when compared to a true macro lens! Or should I just save for a lot longer and get te 100 f2.8L is usm? Might not get as much use as the 50 would though!
 
I'd be buying the Kenko or Polaroid set of 3 tubes for less (considerably less) - you then have a range of extensions you can try... 25 might not do it for you but some combo possible with the Kenko or Polaroid might.
 
hunnymonster said:
I'd be buying the Kenko or Polaroid set of 3 tubes for less (considerably less) - you then have a range of extensions you can try... 25 might not do it for you but some combo possible with the Kenko or Polaroid might.
Click to expand...

Do they offer AF?
 
The Kenko ones do, for about £90, there are cheaper Chinese e-bay AF tubes for about half that but they look very dodgy. Its not AF you really want to be worried about as you will probably manual focus with the tiny DOF you will get, its the ability to stop the aperture down to increase the DOF.

One trick with the very cheap (<£10) manual tubes is to select your desired aperture, press and hold the DOF preview button and remove the lens with the button still pressed. This will lock the aperture allowing you to use manual extension tubes at a sensible f-number.
 
Pick up a 100mm f2.8 USM Macro for around £300 used and get down in there with the bugs loads of fun and you'll be amazed at whats creeping around your garden!
The lens is also one of canons sharpest and fastest focusing and has many other uses, excellent for portraits.
IS could be a nice but bugs are often fast movers so maybe not so useful and it's twice the price.
 
A macro lens is the way to go really if you want the best images!

I took the following image hand held with a 105 (yes it was a Nikon one BUT I am comparing lenses to tubes). There was no real setup I was actually reviewing the Safari ring light system rather than the lens.

The quality is FAR better than you get with tubes. Basically the tubes work by moving the focus point forward so a larger image hits your sensor so if the image is 10 times as big you only get a small part of the light actually where it matters. This makes it darker and means you need a longer exposure. This is ok if you are taking an image of a total still item but makes it more difficult for insects etc. (sorry i'm giving you the non scientific explanation)

This is not even a particularly good example! It is not quite in focus but I think you will get the idea.

1pmacrosm.jpg


1Mb version

1.5Mb version full frame
 
Yes, the results are good and they are worth getting.

They have limitations as described above, but that shouldn't put you off. And if you do eventually buy a macro lens, you can use the extension tubes to get even more magnification.
 
It's more about the subject :)

If it is moving/live then tubes are not good. If it is something like a coin then you can get a long exposure :)
 
That they reduce the amount of light reaching the camera is one of the drawbacks of extension tubes, but I wouldn't let that put you off. You can get good photographs of moving subjects with extension tubes.

If not having enough light when using extension tubes is a problem, then a flash is a better solution than a macro lens.
 
Thank u all for ur comments, still undecided but will look into it a lil bit more.
 
i got a set of tubes of the bay for about 40 quid..... weeks went by and no arrival and ended up getting a refund from the seller.... about 2 weeks after i recieved it....

the one ive got have the connector points so can deal with focusing for you if you want it to..... well worth the extra money if your gonna be using it frequently.....
 
Go for the tubes , there's no glass to affect IQ - you do lose a little light but you will hardly notice it, i think its about a stop so on a f1.4 you won't notice any difference, I've had the cheap ebay ones and there are a complete pain in the Ass to use - stick to ones that retain aperture control from the body, also you may be better with a 85mm F1.8 so you keep a usable working distance.

when you get a 1:1 macro lens you can use the tubes to go to 2:1
 
If you can spare £300 go for a macro lens, it may be 3x the price of a set of tubes but its well worth it.
I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens, its far from the best on the market but it takes some nice images that's for sure.

Handheld:

and
 
How much is the MFD by using extention tubes? Let's say a sigma 50 f1.4 has an MFD of 45cm without the tubes, what would that be by adding tubes?
 
Bambi72 said:
If you can spare £300 go for a macro lens, it may be 3x the price of a set of tubes but its well worth it.
I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens, its far from the best on the market but it takes some nice images that's for sure.

Handheld:

and
Click to expand...

Wonderful pics:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 
I've used the Canon 25mm and 12.5mm extension tubes on these very lenses and although you get close up macro the depth of field is incredibly low and autofocus is bad despite what it says about it being useable with these tubes. I would buy a dedicated macro lens like the 100mm for best results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top