Macro Lens, or extender?

Hello guys and girls.

I was thinking what I am I missing in my Photographic equipment, and I feel the only thing I do not have, but might find usefull are some macro options.

Sure I have the 24-70 Mk 1 to do that, but for those "real macro" pictures I would need something else.

I am thinking about the Canon Extension Tubes EF 12 and EF 25, and one of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lenses.
Yet I am unsure what would be the better option.

The tubes are cheaper, and are useable with all my lenses, while the Macro lens is another "bigger" piece that I need to carry around.
(Sure the Lens can produce larger magnification.)

Or is the lens combinable with the tubes?

What is your experience?

Thank you.
Roland

I used extension tubes (kenko 12-20-36) for a couple of years, practicing and getting used to do macro. I bought my 100L just two weeks ago and I am very pleased. And I can also use my extension tubes with-it. I suggest to start out with tubes, practice with them, see if you like macro photography. They are a lot cheaper and can delay a big buy, to possibly get the good macro lens for you in the future. With the tubes, you'll get used to the narrow dof, practice stacking... so when you get a real macro lens, it will be less frustrating and you will get better results because of your knowledge of macro. Just my 2 cents

Thank you, I think you pretty much nailed it.
Will most likely do it like you suggested, as I was also thinking about the same, just was not sure about it.

I just started using a dslr and thought macro is my thing so I bought the 100mm (not het L) but found out is wasn't that easy. I sold it again. I learned more about photography and shooting macro part was still on my mind so I bought some tubes and was very happy. I played with them form a few years ans Now I'v bought a macro lens just a few weeks ago.

Thanks for the input Sandra.

I wanted to try macro so I read a lot of forum posts and ended up getting a used Canon 100mm non-USM lens.
It cost me much more than a extension tube, to it allowed me to shoot true 1 : 1 macro on a tripod.
However I found myself using the lens hand held walking around my neighborhood much more for practice.
I too random pictures of flowers and bricks and just about anything I came across that I could now focus on closely. It was a great learning experience.

I have since bought the USM macro, the 100L (I own now) and a 25mm extension tube and "Life-Size Converter"
I have

I believe it really depends on your goal for your photos. If you are shooting a static subject and a lightbox, then an extension tube will save you cash and the result make look identical the a macro lens.
However, if you want the ability to shoot at infinity and recreate a true 1 : 1 ratio then a true macro lens is needed. Save up the cash and buy what you need in the first place, rather than a 'cheaper fix'

I suggest if you are unsure, and just want to see, the extension tubes. They will give you a feel, the only problem is with the tube use you lose distance focus (and you'll need a little more light than without the tubes). You already know you can use them on any lens you own. You will typically need the FL equivalent in extension to get to 1:1.

That should let you know if that will help your style of shooting enough to lay down the money for a true macro lens. Which will typically be better than most regular lenses and extension tubes for 1:1 or beyond (depending on lighting and subject). As was mentioned by others, the extension tubes can be used with the macro lens for even more magnification.

Like InfiniteDivide, I have the 100L, 25mm ET, the Life-Size Converter, plus a dichromatic close-up lens (the Marumi not the Canon 500D). The LSC I originally got for the EF 50mm Compact Macro, but it works on any Canon EF lens (not EF-S or EF-M), so I now use it mostly on my 100L and 135L. Not the LSC is an all-in-one combination of about 25mm ET and 1.4X TC optically matched for the the 50CM.

I agree with InfiniteDivide, it really depends on what you goal is. Personally I'd rather have the lens over the ETs.

I think the Canon versions of tubes are very expensive air. The Kenkos have the same air for less. I think I am going to pick up the Fotodiox tubes for $60 for even cheaper air and also add the 100L.

Get the lens and the tubes (I use a Kenko three-piece set) if you can swing it. I use the 100 f/2.8L IS with at least one tube, more often than not. They work fine together. If it's down to getting one or the other, get the lens.

if your gear list is right, i think you're missing a fast prime...unless you're positive you want to shoot macro, i'd start with tubes...you can also use the tubes on the macro lens later on if you feel you need to get closer

DreDaze wrote in post #17309777
if your gear list is right, i think you're missing a fast prime...

Well, actually it is true, but for my purposes I just do not feel I really would use a prime that much, to be able to rectify the cost of it...
Other problem is, I really do not know what prime I would use the most.
35mm, 85mm, 50mm, 24mm... Gettig all of them seems a bit silly.
Most say, that if they would have only 1 prime, it would be a 50mm.

The 50 1.8 isn't really that fast at all, also I had it on the 40D, and it missed focus more often then not)
The 1.4 is (as I find it) pretty soft.
The 1.2 is said to be even softer.
The 1.0 is out of my price range. (Well not really, but still).

North Dude wrote in post #17307987
I used extension tubes (kenko 12-20-36) for a couple of years, practicing and getting used to do macro. I bought my 100L just two weeks ago and I am very pleased. And I can also use my extension tubes with-it. I suggest to start out with tubes, practice with them, see if you like macro photography. They are a lot cheaper and can delay a big buy, to possibly get the good macro lens for you in the future. With the tubes, you'll get used to the narrow dof, practice stacking... so when you get a real macro lens, it will be less frustrating and you will get better results because of your knowledge of macro. Just my 2 cents

Good advice, I am in the same boat (no macro options) so recently I picked up the Kenko set as described. Not expensive and doesn't feel to be as well built as I am used to, but the truth is, it is not about the equipment it is about the photographer. These tubes are really showing me what happens with the narrow DOF involved. They are really helping me understand Macro Photography as I have gotten some marvelous shots with these tubes. Down the road there may be a Macro lens in my future, but for now the Kenko set is perfect for what I do.

Heya,

It really comes down to what magnification you need and from what distance you want to maintain it at.

I find most people who want to get into macro, don't actually need 1:1, because what they're shooting is too large to actually fit at 1:1.

I would suggest you start with a simple set of tubes. The fotodiox pro series tubes are $50 with electronic contacts and work fine. Great way to get into it. You can then use different lengths of tubes to get whatever magnification you want depending on the lens used. You could get the pricier Kenko ones, if you just want to spend more money for the same thing.

Light is more important than figuring out all this lens/tube business really. A big part of macro is having enough light. Rigging up lighting/flash/diffuse​rs, etc, for close range work.

If you really get into macro, then get a macro lens. You can always use extension tubes with the lens later too for even higher levels of magnification. As well as TC's (teleconverters) to make for big magnification setups.

I started with extension tubes, went to a diopter (clip on lens), and then to macro lenses and TC's. I still use all of them though depending on my needs. These days I use a 180mm macro lens with a 2.0x TC, for a 360mm lens that can focus at 18" and maintain 2:1 magnification at that distance. But I bug hunt, so I need high magnification from far away.

You may find again that the size of the objects you want to shoot are actually too big for 1:1. So again, this is why this depends.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17310853
I would suggest you start with a simple set of tubes. The fotodiox pro series tubes are $50 with electronic contacts and work fine. Great way to get into it. You can then use different lengths of tubes to get whatever magnification you want depending on the lens used

...

If you really get into macro, then get a macro lens. You can always use extension tubes with the lens later too for even higher levels of magnification. As well as TC's (teleconverters) to make for big magnification setups.

Actually this is what I am really leaning towards

Tbh. I do not have any special wishes to shoot, but in some cases would be a nice option, when the normal magnification of the 24-70 is just not enough.