Macro Lens or Extention Tubes

[mjordan]

I don't have any macro capability and there are times I'd like to take a pictures of teeny tiny little things. So I got to thinking that a macro lens might be nice, but I don't really need a lens of the size that macros are on, so I thought maybe get an extention tube. But then I started wondering which was better. So I decided to ask. :D

I know the tubes are cheaper but which is better, a lens or the tubes? And if it's a lens, what is a good macro lens that doesn't cost a bunch? I'd hate to buy a L glass lens just for the macro feature. Not after buying both the 70-200 2.8L IS and 24-70 2.8L this last fall and wanting a longer lens (like the 100-400L or 400L) this spring.

So does any of you with macro experience have some recommendations?

Thanks

Mike

[Groundworxs]

Hi Mike, A true macro lens 1:1 will give you better images. It depends on the type of macro shooting you want to do as far as size goes. If you want to shoot pics lets say of a coin collection or other inanimate objects you can purchase 50mm macro very cheap. If you want to pursue something a bit more dangerous like bees you will want at least a 90mm maybe longer. I have a Tamron 90mm sp Macro a stunningly sharp lens. Photodo rates it high as well as the sigma and the tokina macro get top marks and relatively inexpensive. You sound like image quality is important to you L glass and all, I think you will be happier with a true macro lens. If this is what you want ensure it has a 1:1 ratio.

Take good care
Tom

[thom@s]

I'll order a Canon 100 f/2.8 macro next week : after reading many reviews, I think this lens is one of the best for macro photos. You'd better have a look at it, even if it's a little bit expensive if you only take a few photos with it (you can also have a look at the Canon 50mm macro which is cheaper and seems to be wondeful too ;))

[TimNYC]

Mike, the most cost efficient, for the best performance, would be to buy the kenko extension tube set, and the 500D closeup lens. This will only set you back about $300, and give you spectacular results.

[Scottes]

I have the Sigma 105mm macro and it is very nice and a bit cheaper than the Canon. Something to look at. I do believe that the Canon's focus distance is better, but if you're doing inanimate objects it's not much of a big deal.

But if the have the 70-200 then seriously look at the 500D. Though this won't really get you to "teeny tiny things." Great in the field for butterflies, bees, etc.

[DaveG]

I don't have any macro capability and there are times I'd like to take a pictures of teeny tiny little things. So I got to thinking that a macro lens might be nice, but I don't really need a lens of the size that macros are on, so I thought maybe get an extention tube. But then I started wondering which was better. So I decided to ask. :D

I know the tubes are cheaper but which is better, a lens or the tubes? And if it's a lens, what is a good macro lens that doesn't cost a bunch? I'd hate to buy a L glass lens just for the macro feature. Not after buying both the 70-200 2.8L IS and 24-70 2.8L this last fall and wanting a longer lens (like the 100-400L or 400L) this spring.

So does any of you with macro experience have some recommendations?

Thanks

Mike

I've got the older 100mm non USM macro lens. It's excellent and the focal length gives me the capacity to put some distance between the lens and the product even at 1:1. There's more room for lights and reflectors and I don't get in the way (as much :D ). And with that focal length I get a better perspective than with a 50 mm macro.

Extension tubes are cheaper, there's no doubt, but you would lose your ability to focus the lens at infinity while the tube is mounted; and that can be frustrating at times. Although that 70-200 is a great lens, it is large and may just be too cumbersome to use if you were doing a lot of macro work.

[Jim_T]

On a budget, you can get away with the Canon 500D or 250D close up lenses to use on one or more of your existing lenses.

They come in a variety of lens threads.. The 500D is for focal lengths over 100mm and the 250D is for lenses under 100mm.

I use the 500D on my EF 100-300mm USM lens.. It provides acceptible results.....

If I was a dedicated macro photographer, I'd probably opt for the Canon 100mm macro lens....

[caldgrp]

Popular Photography Magazine, February, 2004, has an extensive discussion of close-up photography (article not on its web site yet), including a comparison of gear options - reversal rings, extension tubes, macro lenses, bellows etc

I recently purchased the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro and have gotten results with excellent overall sharpness, color and contrast

[msnow]

I have the Kenko tubes and am considering the Canon 100mm f2.8. Wouldn't the ideal situation be to have both?

[mjordan]

Thanks everyone for your responses. As is usually the case, there doesn't seem to be any one single answer, although the 100mm macro seems to be one choice and the 500D or 250D the other choice. I do have a 85mm 1.8 that I could use the 250D on, which would be a cheap way to see how much I'd do in macro. Although the 100mm macro sounds like a good choice too, I hate spending the money for it when I'd probably only use it for the macro feature. So it comes back that maybe the 50mm macro at about half the cost of the 100mm macro and about the same when you add up the 250D and extension tubes, would cost.

At least you guys let me know some of the options out there. I guess I'll look at the used side and see what is available as well (but not on e-bay) and maybe I can pick up something that way.

Thanks a lot.

Mike

[DaveG]

Thanks everyone for your responses. As is usually the case, there doesn't seem to be any one single answer, although the 100mm macro seems to be one choice and the 500D or 250D the other choice. I do have a 85mm 1.8 that I could use the 250D on, which would be a cheap way to see how much I'd do in macro. Although the 100mm macro sounds like a good choice too, I hate spending the money for it when I'd probably only use it for the macro feature. So it comes back that maybe the 50mm macro at about half the cost of the 100mm macro and about the same when you add up the 250D and extension tubes, would cost.

At least you guys let me know some of the options out there. I guess I'll look at the used side and see what is available as well (but not on e-bay) and maybe I can pick up something that way.

Thanks a lot.

Mike

Ah, you didn't mention the 85 f1.8. I'd just get the extension tube and use it on that.

You have some very nice lenses and you are used to the quality that they provide. If I was you I'd avoid the close up filters. The results won't be what you want.

[Burninfilm2]

Extension tubes use no glass so an inexpensive set, like Kenko will work just fine. A true macro lens is a superb tool, but only if you really need the focal length too, (example : 100 mm) The close up lenses are magnifiers that are screwed into the front of the lens like a filter and since they consist of another layer of glass, should be only the best quality, like Canon. All three will give a magnified image. I have used them all and find the extension tubes to be my favorite..... No glass, inexpensive, can use all of my lenses with them, can combine them for different magnification, do a great job..Something to think about..Bob <><

[mjordan]

I rarely bring the 85mm out of the bag anymore except when my wife uses it on the D30 in low light.

Do the extension tubes work with AF or does that change the lens to a manual focus lens? Not that it matters too much since I'd probably be tweaking the focus anyway. There's something about shooting on a tripod up close that makes me want to manual focus.

Thanks for the additional information on the tubes. They are cheap. I still have a set of tubes for my old Mamyia Sekor 1000DTL 35mm that I bought in 74. It still works fine except the built in light meter is off by about 2 stops. That's what I used years ago to do macro work taking pictures of jewlery and stuff like that.

Mike

[Burninfilm2]

My set of extension tubes works just fine with AF as well as metering, but as you said, the preferred way is to manual focus. I also use a spot or flash meter, depending on the subject, to set my exposure..Bob <><