Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 Feb 2012 (Sunday) 04:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Silly newb question

 
Steve ­ Pedersen
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2012
     
Feb 26, 2012 04:07 |  #1

I am poor not cheap and I want do some macro shooting.
Is it effective to stick a ext. tube stack on say a 200 or 300 mm lens and achieve 1:1 with some distance to the subject say 4 to 8 inches ?
my experiments to date with a 50mm prime are nice but I have less then an inch of working distance to the subject.
I am not afraid of the manual focus/aperture ring and yes the light loss is a problem (solvable with flash)
Before I shell out for a used lens i thought I would ask more knowledgeable folks and get a bit of advice on the idea.
thank you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,568 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 26, 2012 08:34 |  #2

I have a 300mm lens (Canon 300 f2.8) and Kenko tubes so I figured I'd try it out for you right quick :) With all three tubes stacked, I was able to get a lot of magnification but it wasn't quite 1:1 and my working distance was roughly 2ft away. If you had a 300mm lens with closer focusing abilities, I would guess that it could provide very close to a 1:1 magnification ratio while giving you a fairly large working distance. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheNewGuy01
Member
Avatar
45 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: LI. NY.
     
Feb 26, 2012 11:20 |  #3

Have you tried reverse macro (I think it is called that) You take your lens (i used the cheep 18-55 for this) set the ap and hold down the DOF preview button and remove the lens and then reverse it on the body. To do this you can buy an adapter for cheep (less then $20) that screws to your filter thread that will let you mount the lens backwards to the bayonet mount on the camera body. I tried this a few times, I got good results but I decided macro was not for me at this time.


EOS 80D, EOS 450D/XSI, EF 50mm F1.8 STM, EF 100mm F/2.8 macro, Tamron SP 17-50MM F/2.8 XR Di II VC, EF-S 18-55mm IS, Tamron 70-300 Di VC USD, 430EXII
Ricoh KR-5 Super 52mmf2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EthanFrank
Member
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
     
Feb 26, 2012 12:32 |  #4

TheNewGuy01 wrote in post #13969689 (external link)
Have you tried reverse macro (I think it is called that) You take your lens (i used the cheep 18-55 for this) set the ap and hold down the DOF preview button and remove the lens and then reverse it on the body. To do this you can buy an adapter for cheep (less then $20) that screws to your filter thread that will let you mount the lens backwards to the bayonet mount on the camera body. I tried this a few times, I got good results but I decided macro was not for me at this time.

He's wanting a much longer working distance than this solution would allow.


Cheers,
-ethan

500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Feb 26, 2012 13:06 |  #5

A lens in the 85mm to 135mm range would be much easier to achieve higher magnification with extension tubes.

A basic rule of thumb is that to achieve 1:1 you need as much extension as the lens' focal length... so a 300mm lens would need 300mm of extension, while a 50mm lens would need 50mm and a 100mm would need 100mm worth of extension tubes.

In truth, you don't need quite this much extension, because it doesn't take into account the lens' native close focusing ability. For example, I can't recall ever using more than a 36mm tube on a 90mm 1:2 macro lens. With less close focusing lenses, such as 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 135/2, I've rarely used more than one tube, 36mm is the longest I have, but I've used 25mm and 20mm as well.

Reversed lenses are a pain in the arse, due to lack of control over the aperture.

Talk about cheap... this vintage Tamron manual focus 90mm lens cost me all of $20 at a local secondhand store... and that included a matched 2X teleconverter, lens hood and more:

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5017/5453385847_10a2a40bec_b.jpg

Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP macro lens (1:2) on EOS 7D

This is an interchangeable mount lens, designed to be easily adapted to virtually any camrea system. It came with a Nikon Adaptall2 mount on it. Cost me about $40 more to get a "chipped" Adaptall2 interchangeable mount for EOS from China. So now I've got about $60 total tied up in it. I like this lens because it's relatively small and tucks neatly into the corner of a camera bag. Here it is alongside other macro/close-up lenses I use:

IMAGE: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4100/5431198523_7f1b5eb06c_z.jpg
Left/rear: Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro. Right/rear: Canon 180mm f3.5L Macro lens.
Left/front: Canon 45mm f2.8 TS-E lens. Right/front: Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 Macro lens.


It's a pretty capable lens, too.... not bad for about $60 invested!

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5125/5283068575_5d2187dd6f_b.jpg
Bee on orange poppy
Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP lens at f11. EOS 7D camera at ISO 400, 1/400 shutter speed. Handheld, available light.


IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5047/5283068637_5fb71ef4e8_b.jpg
Future poppies
Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP lens with 25mm Macro Extension tube at f11. EOS 7D at ISO 400, 1/400 shutter speed. Handheld, available light.


So, macro doesn't need to be expensive. Granted, I was really lucky to get this lens so cheaply. But I've bought other copies of it before, for under $100. And there are many other vintage, manual focus macro lenses (Nikon, Oly, Pentax and more) that can be adapted pretty easily for use on Canon cameras.

Adapted, vintage lenses aren't as easy to use as modern autofocus lenses with electronically controlled apetures, but many of those vintage lenses are still able to take great shots!

Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Winwin
Senior Member
702 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
     
Feb 26, 2012 13:14 |  #6

If you used tubes with a longer lens, I believe your magnification would be lower.

Why don't you consider buying an used Tamron 90mm/60mm or Canon EF-S 60mm macro? They shouldn't cost too much.


Win.
Canon 5D Mark III, 100 f/2.8L Macro, 50 f/1.8 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Lincoln, Uk
     
Feb 26, 2012 15:27 |  #7

I use my Kenko tubes mainly with my 50 1.8, but I do have a 100 2.8 L macro and sometimes use the tubes with that and the results are awesome. I would think the 200 would give you the best results at the focus distance you want, not too sure if it would come out as 1:1 though, although it would obviously enlarge the subject a lot.


EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,609 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3573
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Feb 26, 2012 15:30 |  #8

You need extension tube = FL in order to achieve 1:1, so you are better off using stacked tubes (68mm, if using Kenko) with something about 70mm or less, if you want 1:1 macro work.

1:1 takes 4*FL as distance from focal plane to subject.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,383 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3358
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 26, 2012 15:51 |  #9

you may not be able to get 1:1...but you can get pretty close, and you'll have a lot more working distance than the tubes and the 50mm...

tubes and a 55-250IS could be a good cheap combo, i've used them on my 70-300IS:

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3154/2668691887_e5b6ef24cd_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/algregoire/2668​691887/  (external link)

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,325 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2009
     
Feb 26, 2012 16:06 |  #10

You won't get close to 1:1 with extension tubes and a lens that long, as amfoto said.

Unlike amfoto, I use extensions up to 68mm (the full Kenko set). With that extension on a 200 lens, you can get a decent full-body shot of a large bug, say, a dragonfly.

Extensions will make the view much darker, so unless you have a fast lens, it will be tough. If you are serious about macro, I think your best bet is a used dedicated macro lens. The EF-S 60mm is a gem but is on the short side for bugs. Something in the 90-100mm range will give you a little more working distance, which is helpful for bugs. I prefer the 60 for flowers.

Here's an old one I shot with a 50D, the 60mm macro, and a full 68mm of extension:

IMAGE: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/Bugs/MG2234/720619865_AtrbV-L.jpg

Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Steve ­ Pedersen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2012
     
Feb 27, 2012 03:36 |  #11

jra wrote in post #13969057 (external link)
I have a 300mm lens (Canon 300 f2.8) and Kenko tubes so I figured I'd try it out for you right quick :) With all three tubes stacked, I was able to get a lot of magnification but it wasn't quite 1:1 and my working distance was roughly 2ft away. If you had a 300mm lens with closer focusing abilities, I would guess that it could provide very close to a 1:1 magnification ratio while giving you a fairly large working distance. :)

Thank you for doing that test for me I do appreciate it.

amfoto1, That is one heck of a deal on that tamron 90 setup <picture me green with envy>
Ebay adaptall 2 Tamron 90 are (I just checked) going for around 200.00 right now I will keep my eye's pealed for that lens tho.
I just picked up for 60.00 shipped this lens
http://www.ebay.com …_trksid=p3984.m​1439.l2649 (external link)

from some review's i have read on it, it is quite nice. if i can't use it for sudo macro at least it ought to give me some reach for med distance subjects.

I want to thank everyone that has given me such great info you all have given me a lot to ponder over, I think eventually I am just going to have to shell out for a real macro lens i just wish i could afford one sooner rather then later.

If by any chance you know of anyone that has a macro lens that is sitting around gathering dust who would let it go cheaply please let me know.
It's been foolish for me to get into photography with my limited income but I got bit hard by the photog bug and i have been hemorrhaging money at an unsustainable rate.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,719 views & 0 likes for this thread
Silly newb question
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is aamsergie
1272 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.