extension tubes or close-up filters

Which is better? Extension tubes or close-up filters?
I was told both are used to take "macro" photos using a regular prime lens.
Or can you tell me when to use which?
Thanks.

Tubes cause no degradation of quality since there's no glass in them. They can be used with zoom lenses, too.

Get tubes...Filters suck

I rely on tubes almost exclusively when I need a bit more magnification. As stated, tubes have nothing in them but air so they don't cause any IQ degradation. A close-up filter, no matter how good, adds another layer of glass between the image and the sensor, so there's generally some degradation.

Tubes work equally well on zooms and primes, but many zooms will loose autofocus capability when tubes are used, and all lenses lose their ability to focus out to the lens's farther ranges. The tube boosts apparent magnification of the lens because mounting one pushes the lens out farther from the sensor. This decreases the minimum focus distance inherent in the lens, so you can get closer to the subject and still be able to focus the lens while using tubes.

Canon tubes are pretty expensive, relatively speaking, but they have an excellent build quality. I use Kenko tubes, which have some plastic but have metal mounts. When all three tubes are mounted, the el cheapo tubes will flex with some lenses because of the added weight/stress, and I haven't had that happen with the Kenkos. They cost $150 for the set of three.

Tubes=Empty
Add a piece of glass in front of the lens, it will decrease the IQ, slightly but still....it will decrease it.

I have both Kenko tube sets and the Canon 500D close up lens.
I prefer the tube sets.

But, if I am traveling "lite" and either have only a zoom holster bag with no extra glass cases attached or my chest harness (not case) with a "longish" lens on either body...I will snap a Tamron filter case on one side with the 500D in it and on the other side of the harness or holster bag I will snap on another Tamron filter case with a warming C-PL, ND, and ND gradient filters in it.

I find the tubes better:

1) No glass
2) The set gives you some variable mag
3) If you take the rubber ring off of the largest Kenko ext tube in the set you can use the Canon tripod collar mount on it to better balance a macro setup on a mono/tripod.

Extension tubes, though both give degradation to IQ paticularly with non macro lenses, the IQ degradation is much more obvious and more major with filters.

on top of what everyone else has said, I will add:

1. tubes fit all lenses
2. filters are one specific thread and fit only one size front element

You can get a set of Kenko tubes for just over $100 US on ebay. Just make sure you get the kind that has electronics in it so that it transfers signals too and from the camera otherwise you will be stuck with your lenses wide open which is not good for most macro work.

Generally speaking, tubes are best used with short lenses, and close-up filters, especially the better ones like the Canon 500D, are better used with a long lens.

A close-up filter gives only small additional magnification on a short lens, but significantly large additional magnification on long lenses, and with tubes it is the other way around.

Kind regards, Wim

i've bought kenko uniplus at bh. incredible macro and shallow dof yet but its fine for my needs. but reversing my fifty via ring gives even more magnification. i tried this and that - i'm fine with ef100mm.
i'm just curious cat.

Honestly tubes are somewhat limited for me. You can only focus upclose, you lose infinity focus which when tracking an insect is hard. If you really like macro work try a cheaper macro lens instead. I'm not trying to get you to spend more money, but if you're sure you like macro the lenses are the best. If you're shooting stationary objects the tubes would be better then the filters.

Does anyone have a photo comparison or know of one that I can see online? Are $110 Kenko tubes that much better than the $30 filters (77mm so I can use step-up rings, which I already have, for my smaller lenses).

Right now the only thing I want to do is document with photos my wife's wedding ring for insurance records. Other than that, I do not have any particular macro work. So I cannot justify buying a macro lens.

Thanks.

In that case, just take a shot and crop it, or borrow someone's P&S with a macro function. My G3 does very well with macro.

You lose a stop of light with each tube I believe as well.

I'd still go for the extension tubes. Also I've read somewhere that the EF Life Size Convertor for the 50mm f/2.5 Macro is usable on all EF lenses. Might be something else to consider too.

wimg wrote in post #3602753
A close-up filter gives only small additional magnification on a short lens, but significantly large additional magnification on long lenses, and with tubes it is the other way around.

Nicely put!