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 Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
Thread started 08 Mar 2015 (Sunday) 12:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best lens to use with extension tubes for occasional macro?

 
GShooter
Member
122 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 10
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Great Yarmouth. UK
     
Mar 08, 2015 12:10 |  #1

I have a Canon 7D and 2 Canon lenses. A 17-40L which I use for landscape and general and a 100-400 Mk2 which I use for birds. The 17-40 is no good for using extension tubes and I was thinking that a 50mm prime might do the job for occasional macro/close up. Any advice would be most welcome.


David. Canon 7D Mkii. Canon 100-400L Mkii. Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lens. Panasonic Lumix LX100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
halitime
Goldmember
Avatar
1,271 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lantzville B.C. Can.
     
Mar 08, 2015 16:29 |  #2

If you are going to stay with the 7D I would get a EFs 60 Macro.
The 100-400 II would work well with tubes also.


Gear List : 1D MK II n,Gripped XSi,70-200 f4,300 f4 IS,Canon 24-105 f4,35 f2 IS,EF 50 1.8 MK I,EF-S 10-22,Canon 1.4 II Extender,Canon 25mm Ext Tube,YN 468/460 II,RF 602's
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/halitime/sets/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
geomorph
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2013
     
Mar 08, 2015 16:42 |  #3

The 50 1.8 is nice because it has an ok maximum magnification value to start with. With a 25 mm extension tube you can get pretty close to 1:1 and the working distance is manageable. Tele lenses don't gain as much magnification without really long tubes.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,905 posts
Gallery: 155 photos
Likes: 5459
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 09, 2015 01:02 |  #4

Your 100-400 II has 0.31x max magnification, over double that of the 50 1.8 II (0.15x)
100-400 II with 25mm tube increases to 0.46x at 400mm or 0.42X at 100mm.

17-40 has 0.24x max magnification. Are you sure it's no good for tubes?


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
12,403 posts
Gallery: 561 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34702
Joined May 2008
Location: Ottawa
Post edited over 6 years ago by Archibald.
     
Mar 09, 2015 01:39 |  #5

With a cheap adapter you can fit your 100mm Macro-Takumar to your 7D.

You would probably get better results with the 100-400mm, though (might sound strange). But the highest magnification is at 400mm, and your working distance (from end of lens to subject) would be rather long. If you want to get higher magnification with the 100-400mm than the bare lens allows, you will need a lot of extension tubes - and the zooming/focusing behavior will be weird with extension tubes.

A 50mm prime and extension tubes should work. Alternatively you might be able to use your 17-40mm with a Raynox closeup lens (sometimes incorrectly called "filters").

The usual optical formulas for calculating magnification usually don't work with modern lenses because they change focal length with focusing. You need to consult the lens manuals to find the magnifications with different extensions and closeup lenses.

Working distance could be an important issue. Some zooms with extension tubes give very short WD, even to the point where the subject touches the glass. Take some time to figure out what kind of WD you will need, and then explore possibilities with that in mind. (WDs need to be looked up in the lens manuals.)


Canon R5, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses, Sony RX10 IV
I'm Ed. C&C always welcome. Picture editing OK. Donate to POTN here
.
I'm probably listening to the Beethoven Channel (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GShooter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
122 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 10
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Great Yarmouth. UK
     
Mar 09, 2015 10:50 as a reply to  @ Archibald's post |  #6

Thanks for the replies. Dave, the 17-40 focuses very close bare bones. I tried it with25mm tube and it was mms away from the subject it also has a 77mm thread so no good for a Raynox. Archibald, I no longer have the 100mm Macro Takumer, have been trying to edit my gear list but have not figured out how to do it yet. I am really looking forward to the Dragon and butterfly season when I believe the 100-400 will excel. I just want something for closer, smaller insects and only occasionally otherwise I would have kept the Takumer. I am actually trying to reduce the amount of gear I have so that I am left with a 7D body, 100-400 and 17-40 L lenses, macro tubes and a lens to use them on and a G1x.


David. Canon 7D Mkii. Canon 100-400L Mkii. Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lens. Panasonic Lumix LX100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
12,403 posts
Gallery: 561 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34702
Joined May 2008
Location: Ottawa
     
Mar 09, 2015 11:57 |  #7

GShooter wrote in post #17467303 (external link)
Dave, the 17-40 focuses very close bare bones. I tried it with25mm tube and it was mms away from the subject it also has a 77mm thread so no good for a Raynox.

Try a step-down adapter to fit a Raynox. It might vignette, but there's a good chance it won't, especially stopped down.


Canon R5, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses, Sony RX10 IV
I'm Ed. C&C always welcome. Picture editing OK. Donate to POTN here
.
I'm probably listening to the Beethoven Channel (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
faro
Member
33 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2013
     
Apr 12, 2015 16:11 |  #8

I'll try my 70-200 and see what happens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sgt.
Senior Member
Avatar
914 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 671
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Cambridge,Ontario
     
Apr 15, 2015 05:26 |  #9

I second the 60 macro. I just got a used one
For 300$, nice sharp little lens!


Iain
7D MKII
Another minion in the Pondrader fan club

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

3,019 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best lens to use with extension tubes for occasional macro?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
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 jstrothe
681 guests, 149 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.