tele-zoom, close-focus distances?

[jmublueduck]

I'm looking to do some close-up work, not necessarily macro, but close. In researching lenses, I'm wondering... just how close can you get to a subject w/ a zoom (e.g. 70-200, etc)? I only have primes as of now (8mm, 50mm, 100mm -- f2, not macro), but am looking for a versatile, high quality zoom in this range w/ close-focusing capabilities... any ideas?

I know what lenses are good... I'm looking more for owners who have used them in close-up situations.... if you have sample pictures, please post them!

thanks ;)

(edit: actually, if you know of standard zoom close-focus capabilities, post those too. I've used the 28-135 before.. I know that works well in this case, but I sold it b/c it was too slow for me.)

[CyberDyneSystems]

There are a lot of solutions proferred in this thread;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11331

FYI,. I received my "Close up extension tubes" Yesterday. I am absolutely amazed at how I can turn any of my lenses into extreme closeup macros!

So far I have tried them on my 28-300mm and my 70-200mm f/2.8

Both with amazing results! I have no idea why anyone would buy a dedicated macro when its this easy.

I got the Kenko tube kit which comes with 3 tubes for about $120.00 at B&H.

They do not adversley effect the lens metering or autofocus.

[jmublueduck]

good thoughts... that other thread is 50% argument.. hehe.

so Q: do you really need all 3 extension tubes in that set? What's the difference in how the different lengths work?

Anyone else used these?

[SoCal69]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I received my "Close up extension tubes" Yesterday. I am absolutely amazed at how I can turn any of my lenses into extreme closeup macros!

So far I have tried them on my 28-300mm and my 70-200mm f/2.8


This is a potential option for me. How much f-stop reduction is there on these. Also, how much closer can you get to the subject? I have a 28-105mm and 70-300mm/f4, both of which have macro settings, but still require about 3 feet of distance from the subject.

[robertwgross]

I was on a nature hike, carrying my D60 and only one lens, the 28-200mm zoom. However, I also had one extension tube, so I was able to focus in pretty close. There was a log with a large mass of lady bugs, so I shot one in dim light, and the full frame was five lady bugs across. The distance must have been just a few inches.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

jmublueduck,

The different tube lengths allow different degrees of "closeness",. in other words the more tube length in mm,. the closer you get. The instructions explain how much aperture you loose with each ring,.. I don't remember off hand,. but it is not much untill you stack up all three.

You will only need to compensate for exposure if you are setting manually. If you use any of the autoexposure settings,. the through the lens metering will compensate automatically.

SoCal69,
With a Sigma 28-300mm at 300mm and all three tubes (68mm total) I had the lens maybe 2 or 3 inches from the subject!!!

It seems to vary from lens to lens what the sweet spot will be,.. but the 3 ring set from kenko is about 1/2 the cost of the canon 25mm ring. And as Rudi allready pointed,. all they are is hollow tubes,. no glass,. so do we need Canon quality?

..and I like the flexibility of the 7 combinations you can acheive,. especially since I will use them on different lenses.

I bet these tubes and Canons 50mm 1.8 @ $70.00 will make a super macro lens!

As soon as I get some decent pics I'll post some results.

[SoCal69]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:

As soon as I get some decent pics I'll post some results


Please do! And if you can, include information about exposure settings and lenses used.

[jmublueduck]

http://www.northrup.org/equipment/extension.htm

[FredT]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Both with amazing results! I have no idea why anyone would buy a dedicated macro when its this easy.

I'll give you couple of very good reason to buy a dedicated macro lens: 1) you get to focus from very close all the way to infinity, and 2) you don't lose light. For occational macro photography, tubes are fine, but if you do a lot close-up work, you will want a good macro lens.

But the question was close-focusing zoom lenses. The Canon 100-400 IS focuses to 55.5 inches at it's 400mm focal length. That gives a magnification of .2, which is pretty good. You can boost that with a teleconverter, but at a loss of light. Another way to get closer with that lens is with a closeup lens. Add the Canon 500D and you can get magnification of .9, with no loss of light. Of course your range of focus will be limited as with tubes.

Fred

[CyberDyneSystems]

fredt wrote:


But the question was close-focusing zoom lenses. The Canon 100-400 IS focuses to 55.5 inches at it's 400mm focal length. That gives a magnification of .2, which is pretty good. You can boost that with a teleconverter, but at a loss of light. Another way to get closer with that lens is with a closeup lens. Add the Canon 500D and you can get magnification of .9, with no loss of light. Of course your range of focus will be limited as with tubes.

Fred

Indeed. check these charts for minimum focus distance;

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/spec.pdf

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/lenschartb.htm

The reason I mentioned the rings was this,. with the shortest, (12mm) tube I was able to use the zoom lens at max zoom from a few inches out to about 45 feet (approx,. I didn't measuer)

You do however, as with the filter lens, loose the ability to focus out beyond a certain point.

[CyberDyneSystems]

SoCal69;

Here is a link to some shots. The lenses are listed. I used a tripod and f/11 i think, (i'll dig up the exif)

This was at night on my kitchen counter,. using only overhead lighting :( Needless to say it was loooong shutter release) ISO 400.

http://cyberdynesytemsimaging.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=25688

[SoCal69]

Thanks for posting the samples. The tubes definitely seem worth considering. Thanks!