Macro Tubes Question!

Candid Arts

So I'm thinking about getting some tubes for my Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro.

Looking at some other macro posts on here, it seems as though people are using the Kenko brand tubes.

Would it be better to use the Kenko vs. Canon? If so why? If not why? If so, what are the benefits of using one over the other?

Thanks guys (and gals).:D

John Mueller

It's just a tube with no optics. As long as it communicates with camera,that's all that matters. Or you can be brand loyal

Candid Arts

I am pretty brand loyal, but if really makes absolutely no difference at all, then might as well save some money.

RogersDA

Candid Arts wrote:

I am pretty brand loyal, but if really makes absolutely no difference at all, then might as well save some money.

Kenko comes in 3 sizes (12mm, 20mm, 36mm) (available as a single set of 3 tubes). They are lighter due to their more plastic construction.

The Canon tubes come in two sizes (12mm and 25mm) and are usually sold separately. The Canon tubes have a more solid feel due to their more metal construction.

However, both Kenko tubes and Canon tubes work equally well as there are no optics to deal with.

If you are stacking the tubes then I suggest caution if you are adding all three Kenko tubes between the lens and the camera. The total length plus the lens creates a large cantilver that could be problematic if you don't support the lens correctly. Your 60mm f/2.8 macro lens is not that long so stacking the three with that lens should not be a problem.

Candid Arts

awesome. Thanks for the info.

So how do these things work? Do they adjust the focal length, or the lifesize aspect (i.e. 1:1, 2:1, etc...)? I'm guessing the focal length, so a 60mm with a 12mm tube, would make the lens a 72mm? So it's possible to stack all three tubes? So my 60mm would be 138mm?

And also, how are the kenko tubes structurally? Are they built well? Will they last? I'd imagine the Canon ones, being built with more metal than plastic, would last a bit longer and be a bit more sturdy.

RogersDA

Candid Arts wrote:

awesome. Thanks for the info.

So how do these things work? Do they adjust the focal length, or the lifesize aspect (i.e. 1:1, 2:1, etc...)? I'm guessing the focal length, so a 60mm with a 12mm tube, would make the lens a 72mm? So it's possible to stack all three tubes? So my 60mm would be 138mm?

And also, how are the kenko tubes structurally? Are they built well? Will they last? I'd imagine the Canon ones, being built with more metal than plastic, would last a bit longer and be a bit more sturdy.

Extension tubes allow one to get closer (reduced working range) and increase magnification. Yes, you can stack the tubes.

The tubes from Kenko just feel less beefier. You should not have a problem with them at all. Some people prefer the beefier-feeling Canon tubes, but you pay for that, too. For giggles one time I stacked all three Kenko tubes on an EF-180 f/3.5 macro lens and I did not like that at all. That lens is quite long and heavy, and I felt as is I was going to break the tubes attached to the body.

Robinivich

I have the Kenko tubes and love them both with my 50mm and my 150mm macro.

But there's a problem, they're EF mount only, as purchased they will not allow an EF-S lens to mount, they have an anti-reflection collar internally that butts up against the protruding rubber bit at the back of EF-S lenses. I've successfully modified a Kenko 12mm tube for a friend to accept an EF-S lens by grinding away just enough of this plastic disc, but this has to be done carefully to not damage the electrical contacts. It can be done, in which case the Kenko tubes are cheaper for the amount of extension provided, but I probably wouldn't bother in your case.

As for magnification, the rule of thumb is that an Xmm lens extended by that same Xmm tube will give 1:1 magnification at the "infinity" setting. So 60mm of lens, extended 68mm (the kenko tubes total, as an example), with the lens already focused at the 1:1 setting, probably just over 2:1 magnification as max. Nothing's quite that simple, of course, but that's the ballpark.

I've heard there are even cheaper extension tubes out there (Pro-Optic, I believe? Been a couple years since I looked) that do in fact fit EF-S, but they're all plastic.

pyry

There seems to be conflicting info on Kenko's tubes fitting EF-S. I think it's worth a visit to a camera shop to try one on to see if it'll work.

RogersDA

Someone once told me that the Kenko tubes fit EF-S lenses, so I never doubted that (nor was I worried as I have no EF-S lenses). But, you are right - it does appear that Kenko tubes will not fit EF-S lenses (at least without some tube modification).

Sorry for the misinformation above!

kdog

RogersDA wrote:

Someone once told me that the Kenko tubes fit EF-S lenses, so I never doubted that (nor was I worried as I have no EF-S lenses). But, you are right - it does appear that Kenko tubes will not fit EF-S lenses (at least without some tube modification).

Sorry for the misinformation above!

Apology not accepted, because you were right the first time. :nono

Somewhere along the line, Kenko evidently improved the design and made them compatible with EF-S lenses.

Kenko 12mm, EF-S 17-85, Canon 20D


Note that it says EF-S right on the box.

-joel

Candid Arts

Nice! Awesome guys thanks. So aside from the fact that now we know they can be used on EF-S lenses, I'm guessing they are not limited to macro lenses? What apple see will they fit on? Like I k or the canon TC's only fit on certain lenses... Same issue with these or no?

kdog

Candid Arts wrote:

Nice! Awesome guys thanks. So aside from the fact that now we know they can be used on EF-S lenses, I'm guessing they are not limited to macro lenses?

The EF-S 17-85 used in that shot isn't a macro lens, so you are correct.

What apple see will they fit on? Like I k or the canon TC's only fit on certain lenses... Same issue with these or no?

I have absolutely no idea what you're try to ask here.

RogersDA

kdog wrote:

I have absolutely no idea what you're try to ask here.

Good - I thought maybe I was missing something.

Also - I coupled my tubes to every lens I own(ed), including a 70-200, 28-300, 17-40, 24-70.

Candid Arts

Haha. Sorry. Typing fast at 8am in bed on my iPhone...

I meant to say what other lenses will they fit on, and I know the Canon TC's will only fit on...etc.

Well sweet. That's cool they fit on more lenses than just macro. I'll have to try and pick some of these up.

Thanks for all the info guys!

pyry

Candid Arts wrote:

I meant to say what other lenses will they fit on, and I know the Canon TC's will only fit on...etc.

All of them I think, with a caveat: they are plastic and will most likely break if you try to hang a heavy lens from them, especially when using combinations.

The TCs fit only certain telephoto lenses because they have elements that protrude past the lens mount, extensions don't have that.

Candid Arts

Gotchya. Makes sense. Well cool. All good information.

Thanks everyone.

Robinivich

kdog wrote:

Apology not accepted, because you were right the first time. :nono

Somewhere along the line, Kenko evidently improved the design and made them compatible with EF-S lenses.

Kenko 12mm, EF-S 17-85, Canon 20D


Note that it says EF-S right on the box.

-joel

I stand corrected! This is indeed a new box, and obviously a new design. The only drawback to the tubes now is maybe their strength, however if you've got a really heavy lens on the end, the tubes are more likely supporting the weight of the camera, not the lens, since if the lens is the center of gravity, it's what you'll be supporting anyways (via tripod foot, etc).

I've heard plenty of stories about people using a few mm's of extension tubes to help their 300mm and 400mm lenses focus closer for birds, etc, or with TS-E lenses for close up product photography, so there are plenty of applications out there.

Candid Arts

Very interesting stuff.

There is one thing I'm still confused about. If you add a tube to a lens, does it mean you can get physically closer to the subject and thus increasing the magnification (1x [1:1], 2x [2:1], 3x [3:1], etc...) or does it enable you to be farther away but still have the same FOV (like going from a 60mm lens to a [with the addition of a 30mm tube] to a 90mm lens)?

RogersDA

Candid Arts wrote:

Very interesting stuff.

There is one thing I'm still confused about. If you add a tube to a lens, does it mean you can get physically closer to the subject and thus increasing the magnification (1x [1:1], 2x [2:1], 3x [3:1], etc...) or does it enable you to be farther away but still have the same FOV (like going from a 60mm lens to a [with the addition of a 30mm tube] to a 90mm lens)?

Adding a tube allow you to get closer to the subject. For example, using a 17-40 lens the minimum focusing distance is about 11 inches. At 40mm with a Canon extension tube the working distance is much small, 4 inches or so, for example:


Now, if I decrease the focal the working distance becomes much, much smaller. I think around 25mm the working distance was effectively 0 for this lens and the tube that I borrowed from Marc Muench. Sorry, I can't recall which tube I was using at that time.

Sorry - I don't know equivalent magnification factors.

Candid Arts

Ok So it actually decreases the Minimum Focusing Distance then. Hmmm... Is there any way to not have to get close to the subject? For example: I am deathly afraid of spiders, but for some reason, I love photographing them. So my 60mm sometimes freaks me out a bit having to get that close. Without buying a 100mm or the 180mm? This is what I thought the tubes did.

kdog

Candid Arts wrote:

Ok So it actually decreases the Minimum Focusing Distance then. Hmmm... Is there any way to not have to get close to the subject? For example: I am deathly afraid of spiders, but for some reason, I love photographing them. So my 60mm sometimes freaks me out a bit having to get that close. Without buying a 100mm or the 180mm? This is what I thought the tubes did.

Then you don't want tubes. What I noticed in taking that shot I previously posted was that it kills the ability of the lens to focus at long distances at all. I had to be within about 3" of that box in order for it to focus. I couldn't even get the "Kenko" logo in the view along with "EF-S", which is what I really wanted to do. You'd need a long telephoto to get what you want using tubes. I've seen some close bird captures with a 400mm lens and extension tube, and they were amazing.

Candid Arts

Hmmm...alrighty. Well then I might just try selling my 60mm and buying the 100. I think that's gonna be my best bet.

Thanks for all the help!

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

Ok So it actually decreases the Minimum Focusing Distance then. Hmmm... Is there any way to not have to get close to the subject? For example: I am deathly afraid of spiders, but for some reason, I love photographing them. So my 60mm sometimes freaks me out a bit having to get that close. Without buying a 100mm or the 180mm? This is what I thought the tubes did.

I use a close-focus diopter lens to adjust the minimum focus distance (MFD) as well as boost magnification.

I use a Canon 500D, 77mm diameter, with both the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and, with a reducing adapter, the Canon 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. The combination provides an MFD of 500mm when the host lens is at infinity and it yields around a 1/2 lifesize magnification. When the host lens is at MFD the system MFD is shorter, but the magnification is greater. In the case of the f4L the total magnification is ultimately almost 1:1 or almost true macro. The diopter lens also has minimal impact on the aperture efficiency, so f8 is still f8.

An example from our Dalantech:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/708248681/

I also use a 330mm diopter, 52mm diameter, with the Canon 50mm, f1.4 USM and it makes a very compact close focus capable system.

Examples in this thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=947583&postcount=8

DOF is pretty shallow using a close-focus diopter, so if you need more DOF a true macro 1:1 lens is a better choice.

I do plan on getting a Tamron 90mm, F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro sometime fairly soon.

Robinivich

kdog wrote:

Then you don't want tubes. What I noticed in taking that shot I previously posted was that it kills the ability of the lens to focus at long distances at all. I had to be within about 3" of that box in order for it to focus. I couldn't even get the "Kenko" logo in the view along with "EF-S", which is what I really wanted to do. You'd need a long telephoto to get what you want using tubes. I've seen some close bird captures with a 400mm lens and extension tube, and they were amazing.

Something important to mention for others reading this thread, the 17-85 can be an extreme example, I've noticed that zooms shorter than 100mm, or maybe just EF-S zooms behave rather differently than primes with the same amount of extension. I can happily put 68mm of tubes behind a 50mm, and get good results from photos an inch or so in front of the lens. On my 17-85 when I played with some modded tubes a few years back, I found that with 68mm of tubes, with the lens set to 85mm (ought to not even match a true macro lens), the lens actually focused either on the dust on my UV filter, or on the surface of the front element!

It is true that extension tubes are not going to give you more reach. For that, you want either a teleconverter (most wouldn't be compatible though) or a longer lens (100mm, 150mm, 180mm, in order from easiest to use to most reach). Ziggy's suggestions are also excellent things to look at.

Candid Arts

Robinivich wrote:

On my 17-85 when I played with some modded tubes a few years back, I found that with 68mm of tubes, with the lens set to 85mm (ought to not even match a true macro lens), the lens actually focused either on the dust on my UV filter, or on the surface of the front element!

Wow. That's insane. I'd still love that closer MFD for stuff that won't jump on me or bite me, but I think the 100mm would be better suited for my needs, in addition to some tubes.

darkdragon

About mounting on a larger lens. I normally use a 50mm, but working with the 70-200 zoom is also nice. Here are some examples showing the setup and everything, I hope this helps answer some questions.

1. The setup. Mounted lens on a tripod, no issues with loosness or breaking. There is a lot of metal in the new Kenko tubes.


2. Focal distance. You got to be pretty close for these things.


3. The result.

Exposure Time 2s (2/1)
Aperture f/11.0
ISO 100
Focal Length 93mm (148.8mm in 35mm)

Candid Arts

Holy crap. That's insane. On your 40D...is that one of those rubber case things? How does that help anything? In case you drop it (god forbid)?

That is so cool. I want some tubes now. Thanks for the pic!

darkdragon

Candid Arts wrote:

Holy crap. That's insane. On your 40D...is that one of those rubber case things? How does that help anything? In case you drop it (god forbid)?

That is so cool. I want some tubes now. Thanks for the pic!

You're welcome. That is Camera Armor, the silicon cover. I love it, it keeps my camera cool when I'm shooting in the sun - it also gives me more gripping power. I don't worry about the camera slipping out of my hand so much anymore (it never did slip, i just always worried). It also protects the body from scratches and dings.

kdog

Robinivich wrote:

Something important to mention for others reading this thread, the 17-85 can be an extreme example, I've noticed that zooms shorter than 100mm, or maybe just EF-S zooms behave rather differently than primes with the same amount of extension.

Yeah, that could be. That's the first time I actually used my tubes so I don't have anything to compare to.

pyry

Candid Arts wrote:

Ok So it actually decreases the Minimum Focusing Distance then. Hmmm... Is there any way to not have to get close to the subject? For example: I am deathly afraid of spiders, but for some reason, I love photographing them. So my 60mm sometimes freaks me out a bit having to get that close. Without buying a 100mm or the 180mm? This is what I thought the tubes did.

Quite a conundrum. You will need a whole bunch of focal length. The most elaborate macro setup I've ever seen was used to shoot close-ups of dragonflies - in the air. Working distance somewhere around 2.5 meters and max magnification hovering around 1.35x. They used an EF 500/4, a 1.4x TC, a full stack of Kenko's tubes and a 2x TC all stacked onto a 30D.

Candid Arts

pyry wrote:

Quite a conundrum. You will need a whole bunch of focal length. The most elaborate macro setup I've ever seen was used to shoot close-ups of dragonflies - in the air. Working distance somewhere around 2.5 meters and max magnification hovering around 1.35x. They used an EF 500/4, a 1.4x TC, a full stack of Kenko's tubes and a 2x TC all stacked onto a 30D.

Wow, that's just ridiculous. I would have loved to have seen that set up.