Question re: extension tubes

[Harv]

I have been trying to discipline myself recently and avoid leaving home with every lens I own. I try to anticipate what I will need based on where I'm going and what I expect to photograph. However, on occasion, an opportunity presents itself for which the proper lens is not always available.

One lightweight, compact solution to always carrying my macro lens with me might be extension tubes for use with whatever other lenses I might have with me at the time. These are easily carried in a pocket or bag.

Some of you already know that I own two 70-200mm lenses; one being a f/2.8 IS and the f/4 version which I kept because it was so sharp and so compact. I often include this lens in my 'grab and go' bag.

Does anyone here have any experience using extension tubes with this or similar lens. I would appreciate anyone sharing their thoughts with me about this combination.

Thanks.

[Kevin]

In lieu of purchasing a dedicated macro lens, I purchased the 12mm and 25mm extension tubes from Canon. I've used them on both my 24-70 and 135. Almost all of my flower shots you've seen this summer have been with these lenses and extension tubes.

It's hard to describe what I mean but to me it seems like you have available only a limited focusing range when the tubes are attached. STacked, you can get mighty close!! You do lose infinity focus.

I bought one tube used and the other new. I think they're a great thing. In full disclosure, I'm now planning on purchasing a dedicated macro lens for the additional advantages.

[Jonathan]

I have been trying to discipline myself recently and avoid leaving home with every lens I own. I try to anticipate what I will need based on where I'm going and what I expect to photograph. However, on occasion, an opportunity presents itself for which the proper lens is not always available.

One lightweight, compact solution to always carrying my macro lens with me might be extension tubes for use with whatever other lenses I might have with me at the time. These are easily carried in a pocket or bag.

Some of you already know that I own two 70-200mm lenses; one being a f/2.8 IS and the f/4 version which I kept because it was so sharp and so compact. I often include this lens in my 'grab and go' bag.

Does anyone here have any experience using extension tubes with this or similar lens. I would appreciate anyone sharing their thoughts with me about this combination.

Thanks.


Harv I am familar with nikon's extension tubes but the concept should carry over. I find them very useful. You should however know there limitations and for me it was a very limited range of focusing ability, follow? I wouldn't hesitate to get one just realize there is a limited range of focusing.

You may also consider the 500D but I prefer the extension tubes.

[Harv]

In lieu of purchasing a dedicated macro lens, I purchased the 12mm and 25mm extension tubes from Canon. I've used them on both my 24-70 and 135. Almost all of my flower shots you've seen this summer have been with these lenses and extension tubes.

It's hard to describe what I mean but to me it seems like you have available only a limited focusing range when the tubes are attached. STacked, you can get mighty close!! You do lose infinity focus.

I bought one tube used and the other new. I think they're a great thing. In full disclosure, I'm now planning on purchasing a dedicated macro lens for the additional advantages.

Thanks, Kevin. I guess I could have been a bit more specific. I know you lose infinity focus as I used to use an extension tube with my old FD 500 4.5L to get closer minimum focus. What I'm wondering is, does the zoom give back some of the flexibility you would lose using extension tubes with a fixed focal length lens.

[Kevin]

I think I'm following, Harv. I was playing around with the extension tubes on my 24-70. Zooming posed no issues. In fact, I was surprised at how close I could really get with the tubes attached to my zoom.

[cindyflood]

It is not necessary to purchase Canon brand extension tubes. I bought the 3 tube Kenko extension tubes and have been using them for 3 years with no problem. There is no glass, so you aren't compromising quality. They might be slightly less well built than Canon, but I doubt you would notice.

[Rudi]

Here is another vote for the Kenko extension tubes, as opposed to Canon's offering. The Canon tubes are WAY overpriced, IMO, and the Kenko set actually gives you more flexibility, since you get three tubes in the set, offering you "more extension", for lack of a better phrase! :)

Since there are no optics (glass) involved, I cannot see the point in spending money for the Canon tubes. The advantage of extension tubes is that you can use them with ANY lens you own, to reduce the minimum focus distance. Unless you shoot a LOT of macro, the tubes are the perfect compromise. And if you DO shoot a lot of macro, they will still get you closer, even with a dedicated macro lens. I have recently sold my 100mm Macro USM lens, since my 24-70L and my 135L with the extension tubes give me all the macro capability I need.

I have used the Kenko tubes with my 70-200/2.8 with no problems. I think you will have no issues - the zoom acts as focusing (as does the focus ring), so you do get some extra focus "travel" with a zoom lens - I don't know how much you get back, or if in fact you do regain some near-infinity focus. Since you are planning to use these for macro work, who cares, right? :D

[Harv]

It is not necessary to purchase Canon brand extension tubes. I bought the 3 tube Kenko extension tubes and have been using them for 3 years with no problem. There is no glass, so you aren't compromising quality. They might be slightly less well built than Canon, but I doubt you would notice.

Thanks for your input, Cindy. Actually, it's the Kenko DG tubes that I'm looking at. I think that the Kenko tubes use a heavily metalized plastic mount as opposed to a metal mount. However, if I'm not mistaken, Canon does this as well on some of their consuber lenses so it should stand up fine.

Here is another vote for the Kenko extension tubes, as opposed to Canon's offering. The Canon tubes are WAY overpriced, IMO, and the Kenko set actually gives you more flexibility, since you get three tubes in the set, offering you "more extension", for lack of a better phrase! :)

Since there are no optics (glass) involved, I cannot see the point in spending money for the Canon tubes. The advantage of extension tubes is that you can use them with ANY lens you own, to reduce the minimum focus distance. Unless you shoot a LOT of macro, the tubes are the perfect compromise. And if you DO shoot a lot of macro, they will still get you closer, even with a dedicated macro lens. I have recently sold my 100mm Macro USM lens, since my 24-70L and my 135L with the extension tubes give me all the macro capability I need.

I have used the Kenko tubes with my 70-200/2.8 with no problems. I think you will have no issues - the zoom acts as focusing (as does the focus ring), so you do get some extra focus "travel" with a zoom lens - I don't know how much you get back, or if in fact you do regain some near-infinity focus. Since you are planning to use these for macro work, who cares, right? :D

Thanks a lot, Rudi. That information is very helpful. What you say about using the tubes on a zoom is what I suspected and it's good to hear from someone with first hand experience.

[Bobby]

I am glad you posted this Harv. As you know we have discussed the Kenko tubes and after reading these threads I think my mind is made up. I really don't care about the loss of infinity focus as it will be purely for macro.

[Harv]

I am glad you posted this Harv. As you know we have discussed the Kenko tubes and after reading these threads I think my mind is made up. I really don't care about the loss of infinity focus as it will be purely for macro.

I'm glad you're glad, Bob. :rolleyes: Lordy, the things I do to make you glad. :D That's what friends are for.

I may pick up a set to play with for a while on the 70-200 as well. It won't exactly break the bank. LOL;

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Just a little FYI

50mm extension on a standard 50mm lense will give you 1-1 macro.

I used a bellows some years ago with a 28mm lens to do some micro photography for a local Papermill. Interesting stuff, being able to see how ink takes to wood fibre in paper.

[Harv]

Just a little FYI

50mm extension on a standard 50mm lense will give you 1-1 macro.

I used a bellows some years ago with a 28mm lens to do some micro photography for a local Papermill. Interesting stuff, being able to see how ink takes to wood fibre in paper.

Jeff, you do get into some interesting stuff. 28mm on a bellows would probably allow you to do dental exams on insects. :rolleyes:

I see most of what I am likely going to be doing is more like closeup as opposed to pure macro or micro. I have an EF 100 2.8 macro and was just looking at alternatives for that when I am not carrying it. I often leave the house with the camera and a small selection of lenses. Tubes would be light and compact and could be in my pocket on those days.

[Kevin]

Harv, how do you like the 100 macro? I was set on the Sigma 150 or Tamron 180 but Nick alerted me to his 100 and now I'm thinking about it.

[Harv]

Harv, how do you like the 100 macro? I was set on the Sigma 150 or Tamron 180 but Nick alerted me to his 100 and now I'm thinking about it.

Kevin, I've owned both the Sigma 150 EX DG and the Canon 100.

The images the Sigma produced were spectacular. Every bit as good as Canon. My nits with the Sigma were slower focus, weight and physical size. On the plus side, it had longer reach (sometimes a very good thing to have) and a great tripod mount. The Canon does not include a tripod mount. The Sigma includes an excellent hood but you have to buy the hood separately for the Canon.

I also thought the 100mm focal length allowed me to use the macro for more varied work as well as being more portable (carryable). The focus is wayyyyyyyyyy faster than the Sigma was and doesn't hunt nearly as much.

All that said, the Sigma produced great stuff.

I simply chose what I felt was best for my uses.

[gluwater]

Harv, how do you like the 100 macro? I was set on the Sigma 150 or Tamron 180 but Nick alerted me to his 100 and now I'm thinking about it.
:couch:
http://gluwater.smugmug.com/photos/76579771-M.jpg

[Kevin]

Hey! You weren't supposed to see this thread! Didn't want you to know I'm being wishy-washy again.

But since you're here now and I know that you have both the 100 & 180 focal lengths, let me ask you a question. I'm most interested in macro for flowers. I had convinced myself that I wanted the longer focal lengths as I had the 60mm Nikon micro lens and wanted longer than that. I don't really want to be "on top" of things for macro, though occasionally that could be fun.

Do you think 150mm/180mm is too long for flowers in a garden setting? May sound like a stupid question but hopefully you understand what I'm asking. I think I read a comment on dpr stating something that got me to thinking that 180 may be too long for what I want. Flowers/butterflies/etc...not nessarily close ups of insects like Martin does. I think you've seen some of my flower/butterfly shots to know what I shoot in that area.

Opinions are welcome. ;)

[gluwater]

Hey! You weren't supposed to see this thread! Didn't want you to know I'm being wishy-washy again.
Oh come on Kevin, we all know that is a given with you and lens choice :D .

For the style of shooting you do I really think you could use any length. I have seen great work with the 100-180 range of lenses. I was just looking through some of my macro and close up work and found that I really did not shoot a lot of flowers or butterflys with the 100mm. I actually found that most of those shots that I had were with the 300 f/4. Even without extension tubes or the 500D it has a very close min focusing distance. Take a look for yourself, my Macro (http://gluwater.smugmug.com/gallery/1562461/1) gallery has shots in it from the 100mm, 180mm, and 300mm. This page (http://gluwater.smugmug.com/gallery/1612681/1/78467610) has shots with the 100mm, Sigma 150mm, and 300mm. This didn't help at all did it?

[Harv]

Nick, your macro work is gorgeous. Wow!

[gluwater]

Nick, your macro work is gorgeous. Wow!

Thanks Harv. That's what I've been mostly doing this summer and I've learned a lot.

[Rudi]

Harv, how do you like the 100 macro? I was set on the Sigma 150 or Tamron 180 but Nick alerted me to his 100 and now I'm thinking about it.

Kevin,

The 100 Macro is an excellent lens! I just don't do enough macro, and the stuff I do is actually better served with shallow DOF, so I don't really need a dedicated macro lens.

Here is something I did with my 100 Macro before I sold it. :D

http://tinyurl.com/yxmjwm