85 f/1.8 w/tubes or 100 Macro?

[RichNY]

I'm just starting out with macro photography (Puchased John Shaw's Closeups in Nature tonight).

My sharpest lens is the 85 f/1.8 which is pretty close to the 100 macro in terms of focal length. I also have a slightly less sharp 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

What are the pros and cons of getting a set of tubes to use with my 85mm lens rather than purchasing the 100 macro. Is the 100 sharper, etc.? If I were to start out with tubes would they be of any significant value to me should I later purchase the 100 macro?

I appreciate everyone's help.

[4g63photo]

Since you are just begining with macro i think you will love the extension tubes. They are from my experiance the best bang for the buck. I think you should give them a try and getting some shots with that setup first. See if you like it. Then decide from there. The tubes are one of those purchases that can sell for higher than what you paid for. You can get them from ebay for around 110 shipped and will sell on this forum for around 120-130 dollars.

[Courierman]

have a play with the tubes first,if you dont like the 85 with then and get the EF100 macro you will still use them on it i use tubes with my sigma 150 ,i started with the kit lens and tubes but i was allways to close to the bug and they was off and running

here one with the kit lans (EF-S 18 55) and tubes

http://mcc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pics/fly4.jpg

[Tony-S]

The principal disadvantage of a non-macro lens with tubes is that you are limited in your range of magnification. I think my Sigma 105mm macro was the second lens that I bought. Still have it, and still use it a lot - even for non-macro images. It's packed for my trip to Buenos Aires tomorrow!

[Choderboy]

Working distance. That's the disadvantage of tubes. You have a very limited working distance range with any combination of tubes. With a 25mm tube on the 85 , you can take great pic of flowers the size of tulips. But if you then want to take a close up of a bug on that tulip , you will need to fit the other two tubes (assuming you do what most do - buy a set of Kenko tubes)

With tubes I usually set the focus ring mid range then move my body back and forth to achieve focus. With a macro you can frame the shot then focus (auto or manual)

Make sense? If not , just get some tubes and you'll see what I'm talking about :)

[WMS]

The macro board has a thread on what macro lens do you use;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160960

There is some great advise in the posts as well as the poll. Personally I have and would recomend the 100 mm macro, but then I do not have a 85 mm prime. Your 85 is slightly faster, however some of this speed would be lost by using extension tubes The tubes allow closer focusing at the expense of casting a larger image over the film/sensor, which results in a somewhat dimmer projection. Or at least this is my understanding.

WMS

[goatee]

Advantages of tubes:

1. You get to keep a great lens you know works great
2. Smaller investment now
3. For macro the loss of infinity focus (a side-effect of using tubes) doesn't matter.

Advantages of dedicated macro lens
Not sure - I'm no macro shooter :)

Get a second hand set of tubes, and you're laughing really - they're not expensive, and if you get into macro, you can then look at what macro lens you really want / need, based on your experiences with the 85 + tubes.

[John_B]

RichNY,
Tubes can work great but as Choderboy said, working distance is the disadvantage of tubes. When working distance is affected then lighting the subject becomes more difficult ex. standard flash mounted in hot shoe can have trouble reaching subject (an hot shoe extension cord works great for this situation).
So a macro lens is much better, but both is even better yet.

[goatee]

I don't understand why working distance is an issue - surely the working distance would be no different to using e.g. a 90mm 1:1 macro lens?

[Lester Wareham]

I'm just starting out with macro photography (Puchased John Shaw's Closeups in Nature tonight).

My sharpest lens is the 85 f/1.8 which is pretty close to the 100 macro in terms of focal length. I also have a slightly less sharp 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

What are the pros and cons of getting a set of tubes to use with my 85mm lens rather than purchasing the 100 macro. Is the 100 sharper, etc.? If I were to start out with tubes would they be of any significant value to me should I later purchase the 100 macro?

I appreciate everyone's help.

I am sure you will get good results with the 85mm and tubes, a real macro lens will be better corrected and close distances and so probably sharper with lower CA and good flatness of field.

A lot of the advantage of a macro lens is in the flexibility of magnification right down to life size.

Tubes will still be useful even if you get the macro lens, so get the tubes and see how you like macro. If you like it lots get the macro lens, the EF 100mm macro is the one to start with IMHO.

[wonny]

I don't understand why working distance is an issue - surely the working distance would be no different to using e.g. a 90mm 1:1 macro lens?

The working distance for my 50mm with tubes is much less than my 100 macro at 1:1.

I say get the tubes because they can be used with your macro lens when you get it. And you will end up getting it! :lol:

[Lester Wareham]

I don't understand why working distance is an issue - surely the working distance would be no different to using e.g. a 90mm 1:1 macro lens?

Yes the WD will largely be dependent on focal length although macro lenses are sometimes designed to have the front principle plane further forward than normal lenses to improve WD, I would not expect the WD between the 85/1.8 and the 100mm macro to be vastly different.

[In2Photos]

Hmmmm I tried my 85 with tubes and had the 100 macro and there really is NO comparison. The 85 plus tubes combo stunk compared to the 100 macro. The biggest downfall is what you see when looking through the VF. The 85 plus tubes loses so much light just to get "close" to the same magnification as the 100 macro. IMO the tubes work better on other lenses and as a great tool for larger objects like flowers with telephoto lenses or extreme closeups with macro lenses, but not with the 85.

[Reptile Bob]

If you are into macro, you will end up with a macro lens and extension tubes anyway, so you may as well try out the cheaper and more versatile option of the tubes on existing lenses. A set of tubes on a 70-200 2.8 works great for butterflies and dragonflies and you'll get good results on your 85mm as well.

[WMS]

The Canon 500D and 250D close up lenses are also options for you to consider with your 85mm lens.

250D close up lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87491-REG/Canon_2820A002_58mm_250D_Close_up_Lens.html

500D close up lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87494-REG/Canon_2822A002_58mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

I think that I would choose these before I would choose extension tubes, as they can be carried in ones pocket and the doublet design does work well. The disadvantage is that they are like filters in that you need different close up lenses for different filter sizes.

WMS

[Choderboy]

I don't understand why working distance is an issue - surely the working distance would be no different to using e.g. a 90mm 1:1 macro lens?

No. I have tubes. I have owned a macro. I am talking from experience.

[RichNY]

Thanks for everyone's help. I just ordered a set of the Kenko tubes to start out. I'm looking forward to starting yet another photography learning curve.

[WMS]

I hope they work well for you, macro photography can be fun.

WMS

[goatee]

No. I have tubes. I have owned a macro. I am talking from experience.

I'm not doubting you - but as someone with neither, I'm just surprised - I thought that tubes enable you to focus closer than normal - but if you had a 90mm macro lens, or an 85mm lens with extension tubes, would the working distance not be very similar?

[goatee]

Thanks for everyone's help. I just ordered a set of the Kenko tubes to start out. I'm looking forward to starting yet another photography learning curve.

Hehe, have fun! You can also play with them on your 70-200 - from what people have posted in the thread, that combo should also work a treat.

[sapearl]

Interesting and very helpful thread here.

I just bought the 85 f/1.8, probably will not be getting into macro in the near future, but I'm considering a set of tubes for things like ring shot closeups at weddings, cakes, flowers, etc. But according to In2's comments it looks like I may be setting myself up for a big letdown.

I've pretty much ruled out the Canon brand tubes - don't want to pay extra for the "L" air - and have been considering the Kenko variant. Called my local camera store and discovered they sell Promaster in place of the Kenko. Somebody else in another thread claims the Promaster is a rebranded Kenko which I can easily believe. The Promaster is less expensive though, so I wonder what's missing, if anything.

Has anybody compared the build quality between the the Kenko/Promaster, and are they in fact identical? I don't mind paying a little bit more if it gets me a superior product. - Stu

Hmmmm I tried my 85 with tubes and had the 100 macro and there really is NO comparison. The 85 plus tubes combo stunk compared to the 100 macro. The biggest downfall is what you see when looking through the VF. The 85 plus tubes loses so much light just to get "close" to the same magnification as the 100 macro. IMO the tubes work better on other lenses and as a great tool for larger objects like flowers with telephoto lenses or extreme closeups with macro lenses, but not with the 85.

[Bamamike]

@WMS
You can buy the achromats at the largest filter size you need and just get adapter rings to downsize them to your needs. This is way cheaqper then buy different sizes of the archomats ($20 to $25 versus $70++).
I have one Canon 500D at 77mm and two adapters to 72mm and 67mm, works fine.

[sapearl]

An ok alternative I suppose - but I don't really want to add any supplemental lenses on top of what is already a reasonably sharp lens. Any time you use an add-on like that you run the risk of some slight image degradation. I do like the idea of adding something - extension rings - that will not add any additional glass to the lens.....just air. If I decide to get really serious about it though, I'll purchase a macro. But thanks for the suggestion anyway ;).

@WMS
You can buy the achromats at the largest filter size you need and just get adapter rings to downsize them to your needs. This is way cheaqper then buy different sizes of the archomats ($20 to $25 versus $70++).
I have one Canon 500D at 77mm and two adapters to 72mm and 67mm, works fine.

[bob_r]

This was taken with an 85mm f/1.8 + Sigma 1.4x TC + Kenko closeup tube (not cropped)
30D - 1/250s f/4.0 at 85.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/85038172.jpg

same setup - not cropped
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/85148313.jpg

A macro lens will give better results, but on this day I didn't have my macro lens with me and had to improvise.

Bob R

[sapearl]

Beautiful work Bob - very nicely done with the tools at hand.

[bob_r]

Beautiful work Bob - very nicely done with the tools at hand.

Thanks.

RichNY,

A macro lens is required for true macro work, but the 85 will allow you to shoot closeups. I see that you own the 100-400 and it can also be used for closeups without tubes. Here are a few shots with just the 100-400 where I had to use it as a substitute when I didn't have my macro lens or tubes.

http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/84995511.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/85082103.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/87033406.jpg

Bob R

[Lester Wareham]

Interesting and very helpful thread here.

I just bought the 85 f/1.8, probably will not be getting into macro in the near future, but I'm considering a set of tubes for things like ring shot closeups at weddings, cakes, flowers, etc. But according to In2's comments it looks like I may be setting myself up for a big letdown.

I've pretty much ruled out the Canon brand tubes - don't want to pay extra for the "L" air - and have been considering the Kenko variant. Called my local camera store and discovered they sell Promaster in place of the Kenko. Somebody else in another thread claims the Promaster is a rebranded Kenko which I can easily believe. The Promaster is less expensive though, so I wonder what's missing, if anything.

Has anybody compared the build quality between the the Kenko/Promaster, and are they in fact identical? I don't mind paying a little bit more if it gets me a superior product. - Stu

Just be aware of the problems I had with Kenko tubes http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186161

Now most people seem OK with the Kenkos but I found the Canons to be much more secure.