Shooting Macro with extension tubes

bhundtbhundt Registered Users Posts: 122 Major grins
edited January 23, 2011 in Accessories
I want to start shooting more Macro photography and up until now I have relied on my Sigma 70-200 with Macro. It's an okay lens but I've had my heart set on the Canon 100mm macro. I thought I was ready to pull the trigger and purchase one, but now I just stumbled upon an article that says I can get the same results using my Canon 85mm 1.8 with extension tubes. I've never used extension tubes, so I would like some advise on the direction that I should go.
Thanks!

Comments

  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited January 12, 2011
    I'm not sure I'd say you get the SAME quality or such with extension tubes, but they are a great and more affordable way to play with macros without having to invest into a macro specific lens, at least until you know you want to take macro more seriously.

    Most people here invest into the kenko extension tubes - they make them for Nikon and Canon. Since there's no glass element, they are fairly cheap (I think a set of three for different lengths cost me about $130 or so, check Adorama or your preferred place to buy stuff). Every now and then they pop up in the Flea Market here as well.
    //Leah
  • ABSABS Registered Users Posts: 56 Big grins
    edited January 12, 2011
    Macro systems
    bhundt wrote: »
    I want to start shooting more Macro photography and up until now I have relied on my Sigma 70-200 with Macro. It's an okay lens but I've had my heart set on the Canon 100mm macro. I thought I was ready to pull the trigger and purchase one, but now I just stumbled upon an article that says I can get the same results using my Canon 85mm 1.8 with extension tubes. I've never used extension tubes, so I would like some advise on the direction that I should go.
    Thanks!

    You ALSO might look into reversing your lens on the camera. The image coming out of the lens is a FLAT field and easier to be spread onto the CCD or film.. It takes an adapter which has your cameras connection and on the other side has a male diameter which fits your lens.

    Also a bellows which works the same as extension tubes but is variable as you compact/expand them.... CAN be used with an enlarger lens. Downside is you lose exposure as you expand but camera should take care of that.

    Just some other thoughts to consider!!!! What do you other guys/girls think????
    ABS
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 12, 2011
    Imo, you're better off with extension tubes - use them, get a lot of practice - and if you find macro isn't for you, you'll have little difficulty selling them.
    Whilst many of the oft quoted 'alternatives' work - and can produce superb results (with the right lens and operator), the convenience (in real world scenarios) of full aperture metering - offered by (electrically coupled) extension tubes is difficult to ignore.
    Tubes will not be redundant, either when / if you get a true macro lens - a full set will take you to 2:1 rather than the native 1:1 - or if you want to use them with your 70-200. I used tubes with a 100 - 300 5.6L some yrs ago and found it a useful arrangement - although more 'close up' than 'macro'.

    It also depends on what subject matter you want to shoot, since some techniques that're ok for static stuff won't be so practical / useful for critters etc that move :)

    Bellows with the appropriate contacts / signal transfer capability do exist - but they're certainly not cheap (last time I looked, anyway)
    Supplementary lenses can also be added to the mix - but get good ones if you go that route.

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • bhundtbhundt Registered Users Posts: 122 Major grins
    edited January 12, 2011
    Thanks for the feedback!
    I prefer to shoot live bugs and flowers. Would that steer me in one direction or another?
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 12, 2011
    Sorta depends what quality of result you'll be satisfied with :)

    I've no experience with a 85/1.8 so no idea what it's like optically. Whilst adding tubes will allow you to get closer / subjects bigger in frame, what the results'll be like - compared with a macro lens - I dunno.
    Re approach with stated (dynamic) subject matter - use the easiest route that allows you to concentrate on taking the pics - tubes with the 85 for the cheap route and/or a proper macro lens if you want to dive in head first.

    You should also be considering whether you'll be using natural light - or flash - and if the latter, factoring said gear into the equation if not already got same.
    If you don't want to use flash, you'll be looking at some sort of support system and /or high iso - altho less so if you're going for wide aperture 'abstract' slice type of pics.

    If you check the macro forum, you'll find that the vast majority are usually using flash - if so, you'll also need to consider some sort of macro arm to get the flash where you want it - ie off cam.

    I suggest you look up some of Brian's (LordV) tutorials etc there :)

    + plenty of time / patience / practice etc

    pp

    edit
    Having just read on FM reviews that one of the gripes about the 85 is the 3' mfd, it'd probably be useful if you could try your lens with a full set of tubes, to see what size of object fills the frame. (just take a pic of a rule)
    Website

    Flickr
  • gussiegussie Registered Users Posts: 21 Big grins
    edited January 20, 2011
    ABS wrote: »
    Also a bellows which works the same as extension tubes but is variable as you compact/expand them.... CAN be used with an enlarger lens. Downside is you lose exposure as you expand but camera should take care of that.

    Just some other thoughts to consider!!!! What do you other guys/girls think????

    I have a Nikon Bellows II left over from my 35mm days. Because of the physical aspects of my D200, the bellows won't go on my camera. The grip element gets in the way. I'm going to have to find a cheap extension tube in order to use the bellows!

    I'll post the results when I get the tube and try it all out. I'm using a pinhole body cap (similar to this one, but homemade), and finding that the ability to focus with the bellows might come in useful. Oh, the irony of it all!
    "The man who cannot imagine a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot."
    Andre Breton
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 20, 2011
    << Because of the physical aspects of my D200, the bellows won't go on my camera. >>

    Someone else had the same problem/ solved in similar way ... and this is his rig :)
    http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2825

    A recent pic ... altho different rig, judging by the tech details
    http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11998

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • meta444meta444 Registered Users Posts: 7 Beginner grinner
    edited January 23, 2011
    until i recently grabbed a dedicated macro (Tamron 90mm: great!) i was very happy with the results i got mounting a Canon 500D (58mm) macro lens on my Canon 85mm f/1.8. Plus the 500D is barely bigger than a screw-on filter -- thus smaller, easier to tote around and less expensive than extension tubes. The 500D comes in varied mount sizes, so you're not necessarily limited to using them just with the 85mm lens. the optical quality, btw, is excellent.
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited January 23, 2011
    I love the 500D but have to disagree. Extension tubes are MUCH less expensive and give better results. The 500D is lovely but only provides good closeups. Not macro.
    //Leah
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 23, 2011
    Hmmm ...

    Use of achromats with the relevant gear - in the right hands - is capable of some pretty impressive results - imo.
    Yes, there are issues, but even so ...

    Recent post
    http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12137

    Setup used / described + other ex
    http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • meta444meta444 Registered Users Posts: 7 Beginner grinner
    edited January 23, 2011
    catspaw wrote: »
    I love the 500D but have to disagree. Extension tubes are MUCH less expensive and give better results.

    guess we could both be more specific with our references... i paid $75 for my 500D new. comparing that outlay to the cost of a set of Kenko extension tubes which run about $160-$180...well, basic math and about a 100 bucks to throw at other whatnots. mwink.gif
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited January 23, 2011
    Depends. The filter can only be used on lenses it fits or a lot of step up rings. A single used kenko used can be found for $20-30 and give you true macro.

    Remember, kenkos are a set of three. Three 500d filters would be a burden.
    //Leah
Sign In or Register to comment.