Using a Canon 135mm f/2 with extension tubes?

chris321

chris321

I like the ginger one
Messages
3,573
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all!

Just wondering if the 135mm with a set of extension tubes makes a good substitution for a macro lens, and if anyone has any examples?

I'm nearly there with changing my lens line-up for the arrival of a 5DII at some point soon, and while I love my 85 f/1.8 on a crop body, I don't like the focal length much on full-frame, and the 135mm looks like a fantastic lens.

To fund the 135mm, I'd need to sell the 85mm and my 100mm macro, which I use less and less despite it being one of my favourite lenses for portraits as well as macro (but now usually go for the 85mm instead).

I rarely use the tubes on the macro lens, as nothing I shoot is ever really small enough to warrant it. So while I'm happy it'll replace the 85 f/1.8 very nicely, will it and a set of tubes fill the hole left by the 100mm macro?

Any examples would be greatly appreciated :thumbs:

Chris
 
Chris,

The quality is there without doubt but it's the usability that really limits it.
With a 25mm tube you'll get to about 0.4x with a working distance range from 400mm (at MFD) to 700mm (at Inf). Adding another 25mm tube will get you to around 0.65x but with a range of working distance only 55mm (from MFD to Inf)

Bob
 
Go for it.

You need a fair amount of extension with longer lenses for macro, but you've got a set of tubes haven't you? Stick them on your 70-200 at 135mm and if that's close enough (it won't be mega macro but certainly super close-up) then that should give you a very good idea when you compare their minimum focusing distances.

I use tubes on a 70-200L 4 IS for macro, and sold my macro lens. Not quite true macro magnification but plenty close enough for me and v good quality. With respect, I'm not sure I'd recommend the Sigma for that though, it would be asking too much from a lower grade f/2.8 zoom.
 
It really depends on if you really need the 1:1 magnification. On a full frame body you have a few choices for macro style shots:
- 24-105 F4 IS which is a great general purpose lens that can actually double as a almost macro.
- 100 F2.8 Macro which you currently have, and is also really great to use for portraits and in the studio. It is in fact one of the best lenses Canon makes for beauty work
- 135 F2 Which you are thinking about, and which makes a nice almost macro without the extension tubes, and is great with.

The problem with using extension tubes with the 135 is that you get such shallow depth of field that you really need to be at F11 and above to produce useful images from it, and then you run into the lack of IS and need a tripod and that makes things quite a bit less spontanious. For samples without using extension tubes look here .

You are forgetting one other lens, which is the 100 F2.8 Macro IS. It should be about the same price of the 135, and with the IS you won't need to carry a tripod around.
 
Canon Bob said:
Chris,

The quality is there without doubt but it's the usability that really limits it.
With a 25mm tube you'll get to about 0.4x with a working distance range from 400mm (at MFD) to 700mm (at Inf). Adding another 25mm tube will get you to around 0.65x but with a range of working distance only 55mm (from MFD to Inf)

Bob
Click to expand...

Right, give me a few hours to digest that, and I'll have a think about it (after I've googled all of the acroynms :lol:). Most of my macro stuff isn't alive anyway, so I'm wondering if the focussing distance would be much of an issue. Might have a play later, but thanks for the numbers, gives me something to think about. :thumbs:


HoppyUK said:
Go for it.

You need a fair amount of extension with longer lenses for macro, but you've got a set of tubes haven't you? Stick them on your 70-200 at 135mm and if that's close enough (it won't be mega macro but certainly super close-up) then that should give you a very good idea when you compare their minimum focusing distances.

I use tubes on a 70-200L 4 IS for macro, and sold my macro lens. Not quite true macro magnification but plenty close enough for me and v good quality. With respect, I'm not sure I'd recommend the Sigma for that though, it would be asking too much from a lower grade f/2.8 zoom.
Click to expand...

Yep, got a set of tubes, so I'm going to put them on my 70-200 and give them a go, good plan! To be honest, I'd be a bit reluctant using tubes on a zoom lens full stop, I know the quality will be a little iffy (especially on a more budget end model), but a good prime should be a different animal! I'll give it a shot, cheers!


FranchiseJuan said:
It really depends on if you really need the 1:1 magnification. On a full frame body you have a few choices for macro style shots:
- 24-105 F4 IS which is a great general purpose lens that can actually double as a almost macro.
- 100 F2.8 Macro which you currently have, and is also really great to use for portraits and in the studio. It is in fact one of the best lenses Canon makes for beauty work
- 135 F2 Which you are thinking about, and which makes a nice almost macro without the extension tubes, and is great with.

The problem with using extension tubes with the 135 is that you get such shallow depth of field that you really need to be at F11 and above to produce useful images from it, and then you run into the lack of IS and need a tripod and that makes things quite a bit less spontanious. For samples without using extension tubes look here .

You are forgetting one other lens, which is the 100 F2.8 Macro IS. It should be about the same price of the 135, and with the IS you won't need to carry a tripod around.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input! I'm going to have a think about what magnification I really need, and have a play with my 70-200. The 24-105 isn't really an option, I do a lot of low-light stuff, and I need f/2.8 glass really.

In fact, I was struggling even with f/2.8, which is why I bought the 85mm f/1.8, and although the 135mm f/2 is a third of a stop slower, the 5DII's iso performance should make up for it. I'm not too concerned about the depth of field issue, I use flash whenever I do macro stuff anyway, and always stop the lens down to about f/11 anyway, and as I'm going to flash, I can't see the IS being hugely beneficial.

Thanks for all the input, time to have a play and see how it goes! Cheers folks!

Chris
 
FranchiseJuan said:
The problem with using extension tubes with the 135 is that you get such shallow depth of field that you really need to be at F11 and above to produce useful images from it....
Click to expand...

For any given magnification, the DoF will be the same for the same 'apparent' aperture setting....the focal length has no impact on DoF

Bob
 
FranchiseJuan said:
I am not referring to the focal length, I am referring to use a lens with extension tubes.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference, which is the point I think Bob was making. It's the magnification (and f/number) which defines the depth of field, and it doesn't matter how you arrive at it, either with focal length, or focusing distance using tubes, or a combination of the two.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for the advice folks, just pulled the trigger on a 135mm from MPB photographic! I'm going to miss my 100mm macro, but I'm sure the appearance of my first L lens will soften the blow slightly :D

The sigma with extension tubes was a really good shout, let me in on what to expect, (albeit hopefully of a higher quality with the prime)!

Thanks again chaps and chapesses :thumbs:

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top