Macro using extension tubes ???

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Messages
3,692
Edit My Images
Yes
O.k so I was looking for some airgun related bits and bobs and came across some extension tubes that I brought a long while ago to give me different focal lengths when using a body cap pin hole lens on one of my film cameras. Yes I got side tracked and had a 15 minute play with them connected to my Sony A6000 and some manual M42 lenses. I tried hand held then I tried with a tripod. Handheld seemed easiest as it was easier to move back and forth to get the items in focus but as the depth of field is so shallow I'm sure the slightest movement would cause problems. My question is when doing this with a tripod would a zoom lens make it easier to zoom in and out to get focus ? I only used a few airgun pellets scattered on the kitchen work top in about a 2 inch group so a lot of them are out of focus but here are my very quick efforts.

m12.JPG

m2b.JPG
 
No, a zoom lens would make framing easier but not focus.
I have to say those are thoroughly nasty looking pellets and I wouldn't want them in any of my airguns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Thanks Jonathan, Someone gave me the pellets ( they came in a SMK spitfire tin) and they were that bad I think you could unintentioanal shoot around corners now they are even more corroded and are going to be added to my collection of lead that I give to a friend who makes his own round ball for his muskets. I will have to do a little more research on Macro !
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
My question is when doing this with a tripod would a zoom lens make it easier to zoom in and out to get focus?

View attachment 326447

View attachment 326448
Click to expand...
For most of my close-up and macro work in the field I use a zoom lens on a tripod with extension tubes, and find it very easy to focus via the zoom ring. Of course the scale of reproduction changes, but with practice one ought to learn which tubes to use and where to initially place the tripod to achieve the desired framing. I prefer prime lenses with a bellows and/or focusing rail in the studio, but they're not as convenient in the field.
 
Winslowe said:
For most of my close-up and macro work in the field I use a zoom lens on a tripod with extension tubes, and find it very easy to focus via the zoom ring.
Click to expand...
I would think that would be rather dependent on the specific lens... while most still photography zoom lenses are varifocal (change focus with change in FL), the degree to which they shift is variable (some are very nearly parfocal).

In the field my preference is to just handhold and shift position... but at higher magnifications or w/o flash that becomes a loosing proposition.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I would think that would be rather dependent on the specific lens... while most still photography zoom lenses are varifocal (change focus with change in FL), the degree to which they shift is variable (some are very nearly parfocal).

In the field my preference is to just handhold and shift position... but at higher magnifications or w/o flash that becomes a loosing proposition.
Click to expand...
My lens is a constant aperture, nearly parfocal zoom with low dispersion glass, but I believe an inexpensive variable aperture varifocal kit lens, while maybe not producing the best optical quality, would still play well with extension tubes. Due to focus breathing the actual extension and focal length settings may differ, but I believe that with experience results should be predictable.
As for tripods, I got one with my first camera, and very seldom have ever shot handheld.
 
sk66 said:
I would think that would be rather dependent on the specific lens... while most still photography zoom lenses are varifocal (change focus with change in FL), the degree to which they shift is variable (some are very nearly parfocal).

In the field my preference is to just handhold and shift position... but at higher magnifications or w/o flash that becomes a loosing proposition.
Click to expand...
With extension tubes fitted no zoom will be remotely parfocal.
Minor changes in the focal length will make noticeable changes to both the magnification & the focus distance. It will certainly depend on the specific lens -
Lenses that change focal length fairly gradually as the zoom control is adjusted will be much more usable than ones that change focal length rapidly.
The effect of the extension will also be significantly less with longer focal lengths.

I usually try macro handheld with flash, but certainly find results are better using a focusing rail when the subject is static.
 
I see extension tubes are inexpensive to buy compared to macro lenses anyway - is it worth paying more for the ones with pins for AF it sounds like MF will give better results.
I assume you have to change the aperture before putting the tube in place... Or how does it work...
 
4wd said:
I assume you have to change the aperture before putting the tube in place... Or how does it work...
Click to expand...
That depends on lens, camera and tubes...
  1. If the lens is native to the camera and the tubes carry all the communications between the two, then it's plug and play.
  2. If the lens is adapted to the camera, then it depends on whether the adapter carries a linkage between the two. Once again, if there is a linkage and the tubes carry that linkage across, all should be well.
  3. If the lens isn't native and the adapter doesn't create a linkage, you're left with manually setting the lens focus and aperture.
  4. Note that if the lens lacks a manual aperture setting ring and there's no linkage, then you'll be stuck at the lens's default aperture, which may be wide open or with some systems, closed down to the minimum aperture.
So: either everything talks to everything else or you're left with manually setting everything.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4wd
Some people have the ability to take stunning Macro shots of Flora and fauna entirely hand held. This is most usually achieved not by adjusting the lens but moving both the camera and their body to bring the image in to critical focus.

Camera rails on tripods use the same principal, but with greater precision and rigidity. and are ideal for static subjects.

Some modern Macro lenses and macro Rings can auto focus. However this is rarely useful at larger magnifications, as the depth of field is so narrow, and it is difficult to be precise with the focus point when using them. However they are rather better when used for moderate close ups. but again placing the focus point is critical.

Using Zooms for macro work is rarely, if ever, Ideal. The macro quality over their focal range is extremely variable, and rarely even satisfactory.
However they often work reasonably well for "close ups" at the wide angle end. They are not designed for use with extension tubes (though they do fit)
 
Something also worth considering is glass that’s screws onto the front of the lens to increase magnification, achromats I think they are called decent ones give good quality results
The advantage apart for the convenience is that you don’t lose light like you do with extension tubes
I use a Marumi one it gives excellent results
 
LCPete said:
Something also worth considering is glass that’s screws onto the front of the lens to increase magnification, achromats I think they are called decent ones give good quality results
The advantage apart for the convenience is that you don’t lose light like you do with extension tubes
I use a Marumi one it gives excellent results
Click to expand...
'Achromat' is a term that's applied to many lenses which basically means the lens focuses two difference wavelengths of light in the same plane (reducing longitudinal chromatic aberration). The screw on lenses you are referring to are often called 'close up filters' (even though they don't filter) they are also known as 'auxiliary lenses' & 'diopters' (though technically this is just a measure of the lenses strength). The best ones will all be achromats but I've heard claims single element ones are OK at lower power.

I'm rather keen on the Raynox models having both the DCR 150 (which is +4.8) & the DCR 250 (which is +8). Both are triple element achromats that are fairly highly corrected & simply clip on to a range of filter threads. In general use I find the DCR 250 a bit too powerful so only carry the DCR150 routinely
 
Petrochemist said:
'Achromat' is a term that's applied to many lenses which basically means the lens focuses two difference wavelengths of light in the same plane (reducing longitudinal chromatic aberration). The screw on lenses you are referring to are often called 'close up filters' (even though they don't filter) they are also known as 'auxiliary lenses' & 'diopters' (though technically this is just a measure of the lenses strength). The best ones will all be achromats but I've heard claims single element ones are OK at lower power.

I'm rather keen on the Raynox models having both the DCR 150 (which is +4.8) & the DCR 250 (which is +8). Both are triple element achromats that are fairly highly corrected & simply clip on to a range of filter threads. In general use I find the DCR 250 a bit too powerful so only carry the DCR150 routinely
Click to expand...
Thanks yes the one I use Marumi is the same type as the raynox works really well with good image quality
I mainly do natural light macro I find in good light I can use the Marumi without flash
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Using Zooms for macro work is rarely, if ever, Ideal. The macro quality over their focal range is extremely variable, and rarely even satisfactory.
However they often work reasonably well for "close ups" at the wide angle end. They are not designed for use with extension tubes (though they do fit)
Click to expand...
My zoom lens produces excellent image quality when focused at infinity, and image quality doesn't deteriorate when used with extension tubes for magnifications up to 1:1, or even a bit beyond. I focus at infinity, select magnification by choice of extension and focal length, and focus by moving the camera/lens combination in or out. I wouldn't recommend this when flat-field performance is critical (reproductions for example,) but it's fine for most three-dimensional subjects and is very convenient in the field.
 
My main concern with extension tubes and the Raynox is working distance. The difference between 55mm with 26mm extension tubes to proper 100 mm macro is night and day. Additionally there is MUCH more light using the native lens. In terms of cost Raynox+extension is £80 or so whereas I just got a used Samyang 100mm for £180 and the experience of shooting with it is far superior.

On a parallel note, the Laowa 2x 100mm (FF) or 65mm (APS-C) seem the be the absolute best lenses for the money. I have been looking at the 65mm and a good used one can be found for £300 or so.
 
Last edited:
Mauri3205 said:
My main concern with extension tubes and the Raynox is working distance. The difference between 55mm with 26mm extension tubes to proper 100 mm macro is night and day. Additionally there is MUCH more light using the native lens. In terms of cost Raynox+extension is £80 or so whereas I just got a used Samyang 100mm for £180 and the experience of shooting with it is far superior.

On a parallel note, the Laowa 2x 100mm (FF) or 65mm (APS-C) seem the be the absolute best lenses for the money. I have been looking at the 65mm and a good used one can be found for £300 or so.
Click to expand...
Using such short focal lengths will give short working distance. When I want good working distance a 100mm macro is also too short & I'll use a longer lens. 180mm & 200mm macros are produced but they tend to be excessive expensive.
My Tamron 300mm telemacro doesn't reach real macro magnifications unaided but has great working distance at 1/3 life size.
Among my adapted lenses is a c-mount microscope objective that has a greater working distance at 3x life size than my 100mm macro manages at 1x
 
Petrochemist said:
Using such short focal lengths will give short working distance. When I want good working distance a 100mm macro is also too short & I'll use a longer lens. 180mm & 200mm macros are produced but they tend to be excessive expensive.
My Tamron 300mm telemacro doesn't reach real macro magnifications unaided but has great working distance at 1/3 life size.
Among my adapted lenses is a c-mount microscope objective that has a greater working distance at 3x life size than my 100mm macro manages at 1x
Click to expand...
Agreed. Sadly with Fuji macro options are rather limited unless I start looking at adapted lenses and I’m still inexperienced and unsure about how to approach the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top