Extension Tubes - Canon

Dogdots

I've been looking at the extension tubes for Canon and see there are 2 and also a life size converter EF. What I'm wondering is ... what's the difference between the EF 25II and the EF12II tube? I looked some info up on google, but I'd really like someone perspective on these that have used them.

Can these be used on any lens? I see people use them on a 50mm and a 70-200.

Any information would be helpful

RogersDA

Dogdots wrote: »

I've been looking at the extension tubes for Canon and see there are 2 and also a life size converter EF. What I'm wondering is ... what's the difference between the EF 25II and the EF12II tube? I looked some info up on google, but I'd really like someone perspective on these that have used them.

Can these be used on any lens? I see people use them on a 50mm and a 70-200.

Any information would be helpful

I believe the II-series tubes are compatible with EF and EF-S lenses. The choice comes down to how much magnification you want to deal with, or get both and stack them. The EF25II will have a higher magnification than the EF12II.

Kenko tubes are cheaper, but they felt lighter (they may have changed them - I don't know). I never had problem with them, though.

See also http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

denisegoldberg

From the B&H website:

The Canon Life-Size Converter EF is dedicated exclusively to the 50mm f2.5 Macro lens.

Interestingly enough that was one of the first lenses I bought when I switched to a dSLR many years ago. I later bought this converter, and it works quite well.

--- Denise

Dogdots

RogersDA wrote: »

I believe the II-series tubes are compatible with EF and EF-S lenses. The choice comes down to how much magnification you want to deal with, or get both and stack them. The EF25II will have a higher magnification than the EF12II.

Kenko tubes are cheaper, but they felt lighter (they may have changed them - I don't know). I never had problem with them, though.

See also http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

Thank you for the link to the Cambridge information. In my searching I didn't read their info. I found their pros and con's informative. At the end they brought up the teleconvertor and cropping in. I have one of those already. Wonder if that's all I need????

Dogdots

denisegoldberg wrote: »

From the B&H website:

Interestingly enough that was one of the first lenses I bought when I switched to a dSLR many years ago. I later bought this converter, and it works quite well.

--- Denise

Thanks for the info on the life size converter. I know now not to get that

puzzledpaul

Dogdots wrote: »

what's the difference between the EF 25II and the EF12II tube?

With everything else being equal / the same ... ie using the same lens + cam combo, the 25mm tube will allow you to fill the frame (with same subject) to a greater extent than the 12mm tube.
Using tubes doesn't change the focal length of the lens being used, but it does let you get physically closer to the subject ... ie it reduces the minimum focus distance and in doing so you get a larger image on the sensor.

The maths says that if you extend a lens by the same distance as the focal length of your lens, you'll end up with 1:1 mag on your sensor.

Extending your 50mm by 50mm of tubes would give you 1:1 ... so using 12, 25 or 37 (both together) will give you increasingly larger images on your sensor ... but not 1:1

Dogdots wrote: »

Can these be used on any lens? I see people use them on a 50mm and a 70-200.

Generally yes, because they're just bits of tube - no glass / optics inside.

Apart from quality of manufacture, the main thing to be aware of is whether they have electrical connections to allow the cam to 'talk' to the lens. Some cheap ones don't allow this communication.

I have 2 sets (of 3) tubes, one Kenko, one similar (look like from same factory, but different colour release knob) and haven't had any issues with them until a couple of weeks ago.

I ended up by pulling 2 of the screws out of one end of a tube I'd been using - but I suspect this was my fault, as I picked the rig up (off the ground) by the camera. Under normal circumstances this is (and has been) fine ... but I'd got several pounds of 500mm attached. (I've now epoxy'd it)

Canon tubes are ali (I believe) so stripping threads in this way is less likely - I've also heard of plastic ones shattering.

For macro work with a light lens on the end, I've had no problems - I just have to remember to pick a heavy combo up by the lens tripod foot in future

A teleconvertor won't let you get any closer to the subject, even tho' it'll magnify the image (at the cost of a stop or 2 of light, typically) ... and it's adding more glass into the system.

hth

pp

ziggy53

Extension tubes are mostly useful for true macro lenses and many prime lenses. For zoom lenses i prefer and I recommend a diopter instead. The problem with zoom lenses is that they are generally designed for a single "color convergence" distance, meaning that adding an extension tube will offset the lens further from the image plane and likely result in color convergence issues (which may or may not be correctable in software.) Diopter close up lenses also have less effect on exposure. (Generally speaking they have no practical effect on exposure at all.)

I use the Canon 77mm, 500D with both a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM, the latter via an adapter ring. I am very pleased with the image quality from both.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A001_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html
http://www.adorama.com/CA77CU500D.html

I can recommend a dedicated macro lens if you are going to want to do close focus and macro much at all. I purchased a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 macro for around $200USD and it has been a very good performer.

DavidTO

I own the Kenko set. Marc Muench showed me how to use them on my 70-200 to get awesome bokeh when shooting flowers. I love them. In this use they simply allow you to focus closer.

Dogdots

puzzledpaul wrote: »

With everything else being equal / the same ... ie using the same lens + cam combo, the 25mm tube will allow you to fill the frame (with same subject) to a greater extent than the 12mm tube.
Using tubes doesn't change the focal length of the lens being used, but it does let you get physically closer to the subject ... ie it reduces the minimum focus distance and in doing so you get a larger image on the sensor.

The maths says that if you extend a lens by the same distance as the focal length of your lens, you'll end up with 1:1 mag on your sensor.

Extending your 50mm by 50mm of tubes would give you 1:1 ... so using 12, 25 or 37 (both together) will give you increasingly larger images on your sensor ... but not 1:1





Generally yes, because they're just bits of tube - no glass / optics inside.

Apart from quality of manufacture, the main thing to be aware of is whether they have electrical connections to allow the cam to 'talk' to the lens. Some cheap ones don't allow this communication.

I have 2 sets (of 3) tubes, one Kenko, one similar (look like from same factory, but different colour release knob) and haven't had any issues with them until a couple of weeks ago.

I ended up by pulling 2 of the screws out of one end of a tube I'd been using - but I suspect this was my fault, as I picked the rig up (off the ground) by the camera. Under normal circumstances this is (and has been) fine ... but I'd got several pounds of 500mm attached. (I've now epoxy'd it)

Canon tubes are ali (I believe) so stripping threads in this way is less likely - I've also heard of plastic ones shattering.

For macro work with a light lens on the end, I've had no problems - I just have to remember to pick a heavy combo up by the lens tripod foot in future

A teleconvertor won't let you get any closer to the subject, even tho' it'll magnify the image (at the cost of a stop or 2 of light, typically) ... and it's adding more glass into the system.

hth

pp

Thank you for all the wonderful information When you mentioned 'plastic' that worried me because in our cold climate plastic isn't good. It would shatter for sure in subzero temps.

Thank you too for letting me know the difference in the teleconvertor vs the tube. It did have me wondering.

I'm learning a lot .. not it's making a decision.

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote: »

Extension tubes are mostly useful for true macro lenses and many prime lenses. For zoom lenses i prefer and I recommend a diopter instead. The problem with zoom lenses is that they are generally designed for a single "color convergence" distance, meaning that adding an extension tube will offset the lens further from the image plane and likely result in color convergence issues (which may or may not be correctable in software.) Diopter close up lenses also have less effect on exposure. (Generally speaking they have no practical effect on exposure at all.)

I use the Canon 77mm, 500D with both a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM, the latter via an adapter ring. I am very pleased with the image quality from both.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A001_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html
http://www.adorama.com/CA77CU500D.html

I can recommend a dedicated macro lens if you are going to want to do close focus and macro much at all. I purchased a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 macro for around $200USD and it has been a very good performer.

Thank you Ziggy for bringing up the diopter. I started reading about those today. Which in turn had me really thinking about which would work better.

Why an adapter ring on the 70-200 f4 and not on the 2.8?

Can I stack a polarizer onto the filter?

Dogdots

DavidTO wrote: »

I own the Kenko set. Marc Muench showed me how to use them on my 70-200 to get awesome bokeh when shooting flowers. I love them. In this use they simply allow you to focus closer.

These are beautiful. May I ask how close you were standing and can you share what Marc was so kind to teach you?

That's the one thing I don't know ... how close one needs to be to their subject if using either the 70-200 or the 50. I'd think with the 70-200 one could be a good distance away.

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote: »

... Why an adapter ring on the 70-200 f4 and not on the 2.8?

Can I stack a polarizer onto the filter?

Each lens has its own filter thread mount diameter. The 70-200mm, f2.8L has 77mm filter threads, the same as the 500D, 77mm close-up diopter, so no adapter is needed.

The 70-200mm, f4L (either version) has 67mm filter threads, so you need an adapter ring for a 77mm appliance, including the 500D, 77mm diopter.

---

The Canon 500D diopter has both front and rear filter threads. I suggest putting the polarizer, or any other common filter, in front of the 500D and furthest from the lens.

---

Edit: One additional thing. When using a diopter, the focal length of the diopter determines the working distance when the host lens is set to infinity. In the case of the Canon 500D and 250D, the numeric component of the name is the focal length, while the "D" indicates a "dual" group of 2 elements. This means that the 500D and 250D are "achromatic" in design and they are close to "apochromatic" (APO) in function.

The 500D is a 500mm focal length and the 250D is a 250mm focal length. Those are also thir respective working focal lengths when the host lens is set to infinity. When the lens is adjusted from infinity, the working distance is shortened.

The reason there are 2 different focal lengths is that each is designed to cover different focal length host lenses. The 500D is designed for longer focal length host lenses and the 250D is designed for shorter focal length lenses. The 500D also tends to produce somewhat less magnification, making it easier to manage with longer focal length lenses.

---

For a very good synopsis on the different close focus and macro options for Canon (but also good information that's applicable to all camera systems):

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm

Dogdots

Thank you Ziggy ... that article was very good.

I didn't know the 70-200 f4 wasn't a 77mm. My mistake

You mentioned a macro lens. In reading the article it was mentioned that in the end some end up buying a macro lens after trying tubes or filter. Which macro lens would you recommend?

I'm not into taking photos of bugs, but I do want closer shots that are in focus and sharp.

DavidTO

Dogdots wrote: »

These are beautiful. May I ask how close you were standing and can you share what Marc was so kind to teach you?

That's the one thing I don't know ... how close one needs to be to their subject if using either the 70-200 or the 50. I'd think with the 70-200 one could be a good distance away.

Thanks!

I was crawling on the ground or sitting on my butt! The distance varies, and it's hard to remember, as I was looking through the viewfinder so much, that perspective is what I remember, and it's not a reliable measure of distance. But I think it was 2-5 feet.

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote: »

... You mentioned a macro lens. In reading the article it was mentioned that in the end some end up buying a macro lens after trying tubes or filter. Which macro lens would you recommend?

I'm not into taking photos of bugs, but I do want closer shots that are in focus and sharp.

I purchased a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 macro for around $200USD and it has been a very good performer. It is not the fastest to focus, but that rarely matters for what I shoot. (It's fast enough for most purposes.) I do recommend a macro lens of about 100mm-ish focal length, which also makes a pretty good H&S/head shot portrait length for crop cameras especially. The shorter macro lenses may be too short for many applications (although some people really like a short macro lens.) The longer focal length macro lenses tend to be more difficult to maneuver and very expensive too.

puzzledpaul

My post 11 in linked thread might give you some idea of what to expect to get using tubes with a 70 - 200 (which I see you also have)

pp

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=111683&highlight=tube+200mm

Dogdots

DavidTO wrote: »

Thanks!

I was crawling on the ground or sitting on my butt! The distance varies, and it's hard to remember, as I was looking through the viewfinder so much, that perspective is what I remember, and it's not a reliable measure of distance. But I think it was 2-5 feet.

Thank you for letting me know the distance

Dogdots

Ziggy and Paul ... after reading your postings/links I don't know what I'm going to do now

I like the fact that on my 70-200 at 200mm I can be a distance away and hopefully get a nice shot. That would be my ability .. not the lens.

I'd want to use the tubes on both my 70-200 and the 24-105. it would probably be used more on my 24-105 and the 50. It's the being able to use it on the 70-200 that like the 'have the option too' factor.

But ... I see BH has a sale on the 100 macro. I've not checked prices on the Tamron yet nor the boards selling used lenses.

One thing I also like is the 100 macro lens can be used for other things too. Tubes or mag filter ... are those used for other kinds of photography?

puzzledpaul

Mary ... Tubes can be used on more or less any lens (afaik) - I don't recollect ever being in a situation where they wouldn't phsically fit. Whether they made sense (to be used with some lenses - esp. wide angles and ditto zooms) is another matter . This is not quite the same for Canon teleconvertors - they will NOT fit all Canon lenses, because they have a protruding element that fouls things up if you try to fit a lens that they're not designed to work with.

As regards their use in 'other types of photography' ... all I can say is that I always carry a full set of tubes when I'm out with my 500mm. There's several pics on my site that've been taken with at least one tube ... most recent being #2 (rat pic) and further in, a side view of a goose head. The minimum focus distance for the 500 is about 4.5m - with a full set of tubes this drops to about 2.5m. This can be extremely useful (to me, anyway)

If am out doing macro, they're also in my bag, since I can get 2:1 when using my 100mm macro - rather than its native 1:1.

Imo, their usefulness / versatility is well worth their (moderate) cost ... especially if you also factor in that you'd have few problems selling same if you did find they weren't of use.

If I was using tubes on my nearest lens to your 24 105 (28 -105), I'd be using it closer to the 105 end because it'd give me a more sensible / practical working distance (about 4-5in give or take)

A 100mm macro is also a decent piece of kit ... and if you intend to take macro seriously, well nigh essential (imo) ... but, in this case, the chances are you'll want (at some time in the future) to get even closer (always happens ) ... so you'll probably consider buying a set of tubes then (or an mpe65 if really keen ). If you're 'not sure' - but want to experiment / mess around, then tubes certainly offer you a flexible / versatile way of doing just that - with existing lenses - without breaking the bank (especially if you can buy a set used, as I did - very little to go wrong with them)

You should also be aware that using tubes loses light - so if you're using a cam with a f5.6 AF limit, then a tube+slow lens combo will not AF. With macro this is less of an issue, since MF is generally used.

Which 70-200 do you have?

pp

Dogdots

I have the 70-200 2.8. Love this lens

I'd be running in the other direction if there was a rodent but a Goose I would take a photo of

Certainly agree with you on the dollar amount spent in the beginning to see if I even like getting closer or the concept of macro. Tubes are the cheapest way to go, but I don't mind spending a little more money for the filter Ziggy mentioned if it will be more helpful light wise or focusing wise. The only problem I'd run into that way is I'd have to buy another filter for my 50mm lens. Then I've spent a third of the dollars that could of gone towards the 100mm lens. I'm estimating tho dollar wise.

Just when I think I figured it out .. I haven't. Nothing new tho