Extension tubes on a 70-300IS or 24-105L, any pics?

I was wondering if anyone has tried this?

The reason why im asking is ive just purchased a 50mm macro lens but I might get my money back on it, I dont do that much macro but when I do I would ideally want it to be good quality, mainly flowers.

The macro lens is fine but its another expense for the odd shot here & there, so I was wondering about getting the kenko tubes instead.

Now I know everyone will say the tubes are better on a prime lens but when I compared my 24-105L @ 50mm with my 50mm prime there was hardly anything in it, the L was just as sharp edge to edge as the prime.

So has anyone tried the tubes with their 24-105 or the 70-300IS lenses? I would love some 100% crops if you have any.

Nick

I don't see why you want 100% crops, extension tubes aren't going to degrade the image quality at all (they are hollow). Anyway I've used extension tubes on the 70-200/4L before and they work great. I imagine that extension tubes would work well on the 70-300IS, too, although you will lose a little light (and the 70-300IS is already a pretty slow lens). Also, you probably won't need more than the 12mm tube for the 24-105, because the shorter the lens the shorter the tubes you'll need.

here's one i took with the 24-105L and a tube. i forget which one i used and i only tried it this one time.

ed rader

http://www.fototime.co​m/2249857FFB1E772/orig​.jpg

Nick_C wrote in post #3645762
I was wondering if anyone has tried this?



So has anyone tried the tubes with their 24-105 or the 70-300IS lenses? I would love some 100% crops if you have any.

Nick

Would you settle for some samples from a 70-200 2.8L? Something is awry with my computer's relationship with Zenphoto -- the panel for changing permissions etc. is stuck. But here's the link -- try it in a day or so and see if I've gotten it unstuck and opened the gallery.

http://www.zenfolio.co​m/Mollym/p145503450/ho​me.aspx

Meanwhile, here's a picture of a mantis that probably couldn't have been done any other way -- nothing done to it but save as .jpg and resize. And a pickerel weed flower spike that could have been done with the 100mm macro for sure, probably with the 38-135 -- but I don't think they'd have been as nice. I should point out that the seemingly not very focused yellow ovals are painted on (and by) the flower and look that way at any magnification.

I'm pretty sure the mantis was taken with only the 12mm Canon extension tube and know that the pickerelweed was taken with both the 12mm and the 25mm. The camera was on the tripod, which can be a little bit inconvenient out of doors -- it's not always possible to find a place to move it to, and having the extension tubes doesn't change the minimum distance (1.5m about).

The 100mm macro lens would fill the screen with one pickerelweed flower, but only a tiny bit of it would be in focus. And sometimes it's just as awkward to move back or up with the camera as it is to move the tripod, but it's usually quicker. I would never be able to handhold the 70-200 at that height for the pickerelweed, and probably only for one shot of the mantis and it would probably be a bit fuzzy. The monopod would do perfectly well for the 100mm on either, I think, and handheld is often possible -- though with the very limited DOF a tripod is better. Also, the macro hunts much more than the 70-200 at most distances. There are tradeoffs -- just enough to make me hang onto the 100mm.

We have one more 25mm extension tube, and I'm betting the 70-200 will be fine with all three. Maybe tomorrow...

m

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

These were taken with all three tubes ( I think) on a 24-105:
http://www.photosbyeri​c.smugmug.com/gallery/​3078666#167972252

And 90% of these were taken with at least one tube on the 24-105:

http://www.photosbyeri​c.smugmug.com/gallery/​3092850#168999010

Eric

Mrvile wrote in post #3646047
I don't see why you want 100% crops, extension tubes aren't going to degrade the image quality at all (they are hollow). Anyway I've used extension tubes on the 70-200/4L before and they work great. I imagine that extension tubes would work well on the 70-300IS, too, although you will lose a little light (and the 70-300IS is already a pretty slow lens). Also, you probably won't need more than the 12mm tube for the 24-105, because the shorter the lens the shorter the tubes you'll need.

Why I said that was I read on another thread that tubes dont work very well with zooms, it said they magnify any slight faults in the lens.

Nick

ed rader wrote in post #3646109
here's one i took with the 24-105L and a tube. i forget which one i used and i only tried it this one time.

ed rader

http://www.fototime.co​m/2249857FFB1E772/orig​.jpg

That looks very good indeed, this is just what I am looking for, the true macro lens I purchased is ok but its yet another lens to carry around where as one or 2 tubes can be tucked away easier in the bag.

Also my 24-105L is just as good as the 50mm macro in terms of sharpness, quite amazing really how it can match a prime!

Do you know how much light is lost with 1 tube on the 24-105?

Nick

Also a big thanks to everyone that responded!

This is JUST what I wanted to know...

Thanks,
Nick

Well to follow up on my own post, I finally got some extension tubes & tried them on my 24-105 & 70-300.

The results were VERY suprising indeed, the 24-105 suffers some CA & softness around the edges of the frame with the tubes when at the MFD where as without the tubes this CA & softness isnt there, where as the 70-300IS is the real suprise, compared with my 50mm Macro lens I cant see any differences, the 70-300IS with tubes is so sharp edge to edge, its GREAT!

Here is a shot I took out in the garden today using 3 tubes on the 70-300IS, MFD is very nice at between 8 to 18" depending on what zoom setting, its also nicer than a macro lens in respect that I can shoot at 70mm or 100, 135, 200 etc & achieve the same subject size in the frame but with the background having that telephoto look.

Ive never tried bug shots before, I dont mind butterflies but I really fear spiders so you will never see me posting any shots of those guys! lol

As usual DOF wasnt quite enough to get everything in focus but its my first try with these tubes on this setup so I will keep at it, for still items I also have the benefit of IS which my macro lens does not, great!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Nick, what tubes specifically were you using on each lens?

Mrvile wrote in post #3656814
Nick, what tubes specifically were you using on each lens?

Ok lets see, the 24-105L used the 13mm only, I found more made the MFD too close.

The 70-300IS on the other hand seems to work a lot better, infact apart from the length of the lens I would go so far to say its perfect!

On the 70-300IS it can take all 3 tubes & you can use the zoom to alter the MFD, its very nice actually, my 50mm Macro lens only has something like a 2-3" working distance, I can now achieve the same magnification or close enough with working distances ranging from 8" to 18".

The 24-105L's working distance with one 13mm tube was approx 4.5".

I actually wrote down a few figures while I was testing it all out.

Here...

24-105

Standard 24-105L @ 105mm - MFD of 9"

Same setting with 13mm tube - MFD of 4.5"

same setting with 31mm tube - MFD of 1.5"

You can see that all 3 tubes on this lens would be a little too close.

Dedicated macro lens

50mm Macro lens - MFD of 2" (1:1)

70-300IS

Standard 70-300IS @ 70mm - MFD of over 1m

70-300IS with 13mm tube - MFD of 13"

70-300IS with 31mm tube - MFD of 4"

This isnt a very conclusive test, there really are loads of combinations, but generally you can use the zoom to alter the MFD, im really liking this setup so far, depending on what zoom setting & what combination of tubes I can get the MFD to just whatever I like, that butterfly wasnt aware that some guy was taking his photo, I was approx 16" away.

Nick