Tubes or bellows?

[elkootcho]

Not having the funds to purchase a Macro lens I'm looking into the cheaper alternatives. My question is, all things being equal, what will give better results and greater depth of field: Kenko extension tubes (with the lenses listed in my sig) or m42 bellows with an older enlarger lens?

Is there something else I should be looking into? Maybe an older Macro lens with eos adapter?

[gasrocks]

Extension tubes are portable, easy and quite popular (for many reasons.) Bellows are kinda a thing of the past. They give a much higher magnification and aren't as user friendly.

[PhotosGuy]

I like bellows 'cause I have one, but you'll need about a 100mm lens, or longer or the bellows rails will get in your way. You'll get a better working distance with a longer lens, too. FOV = field of view
Lens ----Extention--- FOV----- Target distance from lens
100 -----Minimum -----2"-------- 13"
---------Max = 5.5"---.62"-------- 7"

I don't know if Canon makes an automatic bellows, either. I think the extention tubes are automatic.

[michapma]

Maybe try looking and/or posting in the macro forum. There was a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82023) there recently involving extension tubes.

I've recently ordered a set of extension tubes, in favor of affording a telephoto zoom; the dedicated macro lens will have to come later. If you go with tubes you will want to get ones that have the electrical contacts so that you can set aperture and possibly have AF (not as important). Who makes the tubes is not so important, since there is no glass in them. A set of tubes is advantageous so that you can have a variety of magnification factors, which is important since for a given extension you will be stuck within a small distance to subject.