Canon EF25 II Extension Tube Any thoughts / users ?

Posted recently about other users Macro thoughts.

Now I have an extension tube question.

Canon EF25 II Extension Tube.

Anyone got this, used it? (With a 50mm F1.4, or other lens)

I read it was an expensive 'hole' I'd be interested to hear thoughts, see examples if anyone has any?

Thanks. Rob.

I think what people are referencing about the expensive "hole" is due to the fact that the extension tubes are just tubes. There are many different manufacturers of extension tubes that don't try to part you from your money to the extent that Canon does here.
I have the Vello tubes and they were only $80 for what Canon tries to charge over twice that much for the same functionality.
At least that is my humble opinion.

I sold all 3 of my Canon tubes (12, 12, 25.) Now have Chinese knock-offs from eBay. Just as good, built solidly, $22. for a 12mm. Better and cheaper than Kenko.

I have it! I like it! I got it used and cheaper off Craigslist - otherwise I would have went with a cheaper off brand.

It allows me to focus closer with any lens, but I usually use it with my 100mm macro to get a over 1:1 (while loosing distance focus). Any extension tube does this. Go with a cheaper one, it does exactly the same thing. One suggestion, get ones that keep all electronic connections.

Forget the Canon tubes and get a full set of Kenko tubes for the cost of one Canon. They work just as well. As mentioned, a tube is just that, a empty tube and Kenko air is just as good as Canon air for a much lower cost.

+1 for the Kenko set. They are solidly built and have the appropriate electrical connections. I have used them for years with no problems. they are sturdy enough that you can stack all three, giving you 68mm of extension. However, their price has gone up--cheaper than the Canons, but more expensive than some of the no-names or unknown names.

And what happens when you attach the kenko to a 7k telephoto prime weighing 2.5kg and want to use it in rain? I wouldnt call canon waste of money.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16063572
And what happens when you attach the kenko to a 7k telephoto prime weighing 2.5kg and want to use it in rain? I wouldnt call canon waste of money.

I can buy a $5 umbrella and not have to worry about spending the extra cost of the Canon tubes.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16063572
And what happens when you attach the kenko to a 7k telephoto prime weighing 2.5kg and want to use it in rain? I wouldnt call canon waste of money.

Well, "what happens" is exactly the same either way because the Kenko and Canon tubes are virtually identical in all respects. Difference is, the Kenko cost a bit less.

Canon only sells individual tubes in two sizes: 12mm and 25mm. Kenko does too (or they used to, I haven't looked recently to see if they still do). But when they buy the Kenko, most people get the set of three: 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. You can use those individually or in combinations of two or all three. At about $200 US, the set of three is a better value, only a little more than the Canon 25mm tube alone ($140 US).

I've got two of the Canon 12mm, one of the 25mm and the Kenko CA/AF set. All mine are the older versions, that are EF lens compatible only (i.e., can't accomodate EF-S, but I don't have any EF-S lenses I'd want to use extension tubes on, anyway).

The only difference between Canon original and "Mark II" tubes is they can fit both EF and EF-S. The Kenko "CA/AFs" can, too (note the small "s"). The current versions of Zeikos (also sold under a bunch of other brand names) and Opteka can fit both mounts, too. Look for the "square white box" on those, indicating EF-S compatibility. But, frankly, there really aren't many EF-S lenses that lend themselve to macro work anyway. All third party "crop only" lenses only use the EF mount, too.

I used a 36mm tube to shorten the minimum focusing distance of my 500/4 IS to get this shot of a Bush tit, a bird that's only slightly larger than my thumb...

Yes, I've used the same combination, and it works great.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16063572
And what happens when you attach the kenko to a 7k telephoto prime weighing 2.5kg and want to use it in rain? I wouldnt call canon waste of money.

First, few would want to use a 7k 2.5kg tele as a macro lens in the rain, and second, what will happen s exactly the same whether the tube is Canon or some other brand, When using a 7k 2.5kg lens, your not going to have the camera body mounted to a tripod with the lens hanging in air, but the tripod attached to the tripod collar of the lens. The lens will be supported just fine irrespective of the tube being used.

Mostly true, but don't forget the truly wonderful EF-S 60mm macro. Here is one with that lens and the full 68 mm of Kenko tubes. You get more magnification for a given length of extension with a shorter lens. The fingernail provides scale.

How do the Vellos compare to the Kenkos?

I read in a lot of places that Kenkos do flex a lot with heavy lenses such as 200/300/400L, I really would not be comfortable attaching an aftermarket tube on a 6-10k lens. If a person can afford such a lens, $20-30 here and there should not be an issue. Granted there are people who are no where near using that type of gear and fine with something like a 50 1.8 and for that, I do see the merit of saving a few bucks and go down the kenko route, but I wouldn't make the claim that Canon is just a waste of money that should not be considered. I'd rather have a piece of mind than worry about if the plastic tube is going to break.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16065022
I read in a lot of places that Kenkos do flex a lot with heavy lenses such as 200/300/400L, ...

When you are using a heavy lens, do you now just hold the camera and allow the camera mount support 100% of the lens weight? Or do you support both the camera and the lens?