Advice requested: Macro lens vs Extension tube?
GaryBakker
Registered Users Posts: 266 Major grins
I'm going on an African safari in August with my wife and two adult children. We will have a wide variety of cameras* that will be used, but in addition to needing zoom capabilities for the wildlife and wide angle capabilities for landscapes, I'd like to be prepared for close-up photography too.
There are macro settings on all the cameras, but I've never gotten comfortable with them. They probably are the black sheep of the macro family.
For the Canon Digital Rebel SLR, I've read about extension tubes and dedicated macro lenses.
What are the advantages and disadvantages between a macro lens, an extension tube, and the macro setting on the camera itself?
* a Canon S1IS, a Canon Digital Rebel SLR (first generation), a new Olympus SP-550 with 18x optical zoom, Canon Powershot A530, Canon Powershot SD600 -- five cameras for four people! -- fortunately, given our weight restrictions, most of them are small.
There are macro settings on all the cameras, but I've never gotten comfortable with them. They probably are the black sheep of the macro family.
For the Canon Digital Rebel SLR, I've read about extension tubes and dedicated macro lenses.
What are the advantages and disadvantages between a macro lens, an extension tube, and the macro setting on the camera itself?
* a Canon S1IS, a Canon Digital Rebel SLR (first generation), a new Olympus SP-550 with 18x optical zoom, Canon Powershot A530, Canon Powershot SD600 -- five cameras for four people! -- fortunately, given our weight restrictions, most of them are small.
SmugMug site => The Bakker Chautauqua
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
0
Comments
So if someone could extoll the virtues of:
Macro mode on camera
Macro lens
Extension tubes
Close-up lens attachment
In my case I am using the XTi, and would be interested in how this stuff would work with it. It should be similar to how things would work with the Rebel, I would think.
There are many ways to attain this ratio ... 1) is a macro lens. The main advantages of a macro lens is that it is fast mount and use (similar to any other lens), can be use for non-macro photography (a 100mm macro makes a pretty good portrait lens also) and macros are pretty fast (allows a lot of light to hit the sensor which is always good for focusing and less than optium lighting situations). 2) Extension Tubes are hollow tubes which sandwich between a lens and the camera. By extending the focal length of a lens the resulting image will be magnified. The magnification is dependant upon the length of the tube and the size of the lens. Tubes can be coupled together to increase magnification. The good properties of tubes is that the resolution of the lens used will be replicated on the image and tubes are fairly cheap. Bad news of tubes is that there is significant light falloff ... the longer the tube the greater the falloff. 3) Close-Up lenses screw, like filters, onto the front a lens. The advantage is good light transmission, disadvantage is that most close-up lenses will deliver a lesser image quality than a Macro or Tubes. Close-Up lenses come in various strengths and can be screwed together for greater magnification.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
I hope the following will be of some help.
Your SLR camera will permit you to work with a wide range of lenses and accessories. Each of the available options has
tradeoffs in terms of quality and cost.
As a generality, utilizing a true macro lens, with built-in macro focusing capability, will offer the best functionality in
terns of quality and convenience. These lenses permit flexibility in focal distance, and no disablement of the ability to
manage focal plane from any subject distance of perhaps 6-9 inches to infinity. Good quality digital macro lenses, with 35mm
equivalent focal lengths up to about 100mm, will run from $250 to $500.
Extension tubes permit you to focus at very high magnification using your non-macro lenses. You will likely achieve higher
magnification than with true macro lenses, but at a cost in terms of flexibility. Extension tubes are very difficult to work
with at wider angles (say under 75mm focal length in terms of 35mm equivalency) due to the very tiny focal distances
required for sharp focusing. At narrower angles (up to 300mm focal length in terms of 35mm equivalency), you'll be able to
focus sharply from a distance of 1-3 feet, but the required focal distance will be fixed according to the zoom; in other
words, each focal length will determine a focal distance that you won't be able to vary from. This constraint makes composition very difficult and inconvient. Extension tubes provide 1.5-2.0 times magnification, and permit much shorter focal distances than applicable to
the lenses they are used with absent the tube. Regardless, extension tubes should really be viewed as options to utilize
when your true macro lens cannot deliver the required magnification for the shot in question, rather than a substitute for it
in general. An extension tube will cost about $200-$300.
Close up lenses are attachments you can add to the front of your non-macro lenses, and usually are of very poor quality.
These are usually single glass elements, and are quite cheap (sometimes only $100 or so). Better quality close up lenses
exist (multiple element lenses), but will cost more. In general, I view these as a last resort.
In summary, I really think the best approach is to obtain a true macro lens, something with about 100mm focal length in terms
of 35mm equivalency. This will permit sharp focusing from less than a foot away, and the angle of view will be narrow enough
to provide very high magnification. This will set you back about $500 for a "prosumer" version, but it will really be worth
it.
Best regards, Stu
Previous threads about macro lenses and extension tubes can be found on these threads which are just a tiny bit of the previous discussion of macro here on dgrin....
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=152149&postcount=8
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=548945&postcount=5
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=25943
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=410825&postcount=10
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I see by your list of camera's at the end of your message, you actually have Macro covered with that Olympus SP-550
If you choose to go with Extention Tubes, they can be added to almost any lens there is no glass in them they are light, and fairly inexpensive.
You haven't told us what Lenses you actually have and are taking with you.
The Canon 100mm Macro is a very very nice lens for doing Macro Shots.
But...... as you said you have a weight limit, so I guess you have to decide what you want to do most, which will probably be larger Wild Life, therefore the larger lenses.
Have a good read up about the gear you have between the entire family and you may find you have everything covered
Macro is not as easy to do as it looks, takes quite a bit of practise,
light is extremely important also.
Man what a trip that would be doing a Safari
Have a great trip, and do your homework with your existing gear.
... Skippy
.
Skippy (Australia) - Moderator of "HOLY MACRO" and "OTHER COOL SHOTS"
ALBUM http://ozzieskip.smugmug.com/
:skippy Everyone has the right to be stupid, but some people just abuse the privilege :dgrin
I still don't understand macro modes on non-SLR cameras. How is it different from a macro lens on an SLR?
We're very excited. It'll rank right up there with our two week trip up tributaries of the Amazon River. We'll be spending most of our time in and around the Okavango Delta in Botswana.
Can you say more about this? With a macro lens (or using the macro setting on a non-SLR), is it always fixed focus and you have to move the camera? What about with extension tubes?
Yes. It was helpful. Especially the advantages and disadvantages of the options, and the price ranges. Though I have to confess that some of what you wrote assumes I have more photographic linguistic expertise than I actually have, which leaves my comprehension level pretty low. For example: ("... difficult to work with at wider angles (say under 75mm focal length in terms of 35mm equivalency) due to the very tiny focal distances required for sharp focusing. At narrower angles (up to 300mm focal length in terms of 35mm equivalency), you'll be ..."). This is my problem, not yours, so please don't feel I'm being critical.
Your explanations were very helpful, but I'm confused. Your post I quote seems to contain contradictory statements. I thought a macro lens was only for close-up photography. Not true? This question I guess also pertains to my questions about macro settings on non-SLR cameras.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
Sorry if their was any confusion. The difficulty here is that responding without some "jargon" would make the required response too long to write.
To simplify a bit, the main points are that:
(1) Extension tubes, while useful as an adjunct methodology, are too confining in terms of camera-subject distance to be a "primary strategy"
(2) Close up lenses are a gamble due to low quality that often is delivered
(3) True macro lenses resolve the above problems, albeit at a cost level that is $200-$300 higher. For optimal performance, choose a "prosumer" version whose physical focal length is about 50mm (rather than a 30mm consumer model; the former will be about $500 vs. $250 for the latter, but it will be worth it).
Stu
For you, a macro lens would probably be better than tubes. There is a higher learning curve on tubes than a macro lens ... but in either case macro photography is different than 'regular' photography and you should practice a bit prior to your Safari. For example, most skilled macro users use manual focus, will set the amount of magnification/subject to sensor ratio, then move the camera for focus. Much different than 'regular' photography.
If the macro is to be used mainly for plants/flowers then a 50mm or 60mm would be fine ... for insects a longer macro would be better.
more to come
G
Unsharp at any Speed
"Higher learning curve" translates to "not gonna happen" in my vocabulary.
No worries. Every discipline has its own language.
What I find weird and more than a little frustrating, is that until I started frequenting dGrin, I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about photography.
I understood the relationship between shutter speeds and f-stops. I understood the relationship between f-stops and depth of field. I understood the relationship between focal length and depth of field. I understood lens "speed". I knew about the rule-of-thirds and other basic composition techniques. I knew how to compensate for backlit subjects. I knew techniques for underwater photography.
But I didn't know about what I didn't know. I had never done macro photography so I'm a complete idiot on that topic. Histograms? -- I have no idea how to use it to get information. Curves? -- isn't that a woman's exercise franchise? Tripod gimbols? -- what?
Well. You get the picture. I appreciate the patience the responders to my questions have displayed.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
And how can you be sure of what you didn't know that you didn't know?
One thing to be aware is that the longer the focal length of the macro the farther away from the subject you will/can stand. So if you plan on shooting inspects ... a longer focal length is better because when you get in tight with a 50mm or 60mmn you'll most likely spook the little fellers ... flower don't spook as easily so a shorter focal length is fine ... shorter focal lengths come in a lighter/smaller/cheaper package.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Heh, heh. I'll remember that.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)