Macro rings question

[kufel]

What is the best lense to use with macro rings? I have 20-35, 24-85 and 70-200 IS+2x tele converter. What kind of magnification can I get with rings and ezch of these lenses? Thank you!

[kufel]

Anyone?

[DaveG]

What is the best lense to use with macro rings? I have 20-35, 24-85 and 70-200 IS+2x tele converter. What kind of magnification can I get with rings and ezch of these lenses? Thank you!

I don't have an extension ring(s) for my Canon. I had one with my Nikkor 55 mm macro lens but don't need one for 1:1 macro work with my 100 mm macro lens. An extension tube is both a tool that let's you get closer magnification, and it's a pain since you lose your ability to focus at infinity while it's aboard and you need to take into account a bellows factor, although that's no much of a problem with histogram review.

The extension tube - at least the TUBE, rather than the hybrid thing that can be used with the Canon 50 mm macro - will just allow everything to be focused closer. There will be a complete variation of image size and focus so there's no specific "magnification" that I could tell you since it's so variable.

You'd mount one on a lens and then you pays your money and you takes your chances. They will work on all of those lenses but none are particularly well suited for the job. Obviously - at least to me - a macro lens would be the best choice. Its design lends itself to macro work before you mount the tube. And these lenses are designed to be sharp; not fast, nor zoomable. I think that this sharpness is more important if your subject has a known say something like a coin, rather than something like a leaf.

Having a macro focusing rail on your tripod would also be a nice thing since you get to the point where you are trying to move the tripod to achieve focus. This device lets you rack the camera in and out - and some allow sideways movement as well. If you are doing a LOT of macro work then this would be something to invest in.

[kufel]

Thanx.
I guess from the sharpness point of view I will start playing with macro photography using my 70-200 IS. I guess, it will have the farthest focusing distance from all my lenses, too?

[jyrgen]

I read recently a John Shaw's book on the matter and I seem to remember that with tubes, longer lenses give you more working distance, i.e. you don't have to be too close to the subject. Which confirms your guess.

[Scottes]

I guess from the sharpness point of view I will start playing with macro photography using my 70-200 IS.

Later today or tonight I'll post some pictures from my 70-200 2.8 non-IS, using various length tubes and a diopter (500D) to give you an idea of what you can expect.

[Jmurman]

I guess from the sharpness point of view I will start playing with macro photography using my 70-200 IS.

Later today or tonight I'll post some pictures from my 70-200 2.8 non-IS, using various length tubes and a diopter (500D) to give you an idea of what you can expect.

I look forward to seeing your images with the 500D diopter

[Scottes]

I look forward to seeing your images with the 500D diopter

I've got some here (http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/500d.html) with the 500D on a 100-400 L, with and without a 1.4 TC. But I just got a set of Kenko tubes last night, so I wanted to compare the tubes vs 500D on both the 70-200 and 100-400. It may take a while to put together a full comparison, but I can post a couple quick shots.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I've used my rings primarily with my Old Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and was quite pleased with the results,. I just have not had a need to use them with the Canon 70-200mm IS that eplaced it,. but I am sure the results will be great as well.

People even use those rings with super telephotos.. someday I'll have to find a reason to try them with my 500mm :wink: