17-40L with Kenko Ext. Tubes

is this possible?? or is this not even worth it? I like the results I get with close ups with this lens but obviously I cant get to close.

Yup I've done it - but the 17-40L focuses so close anyway, that with tubes you're almost touching your subject.

awesome, yeah u can get pretty close already but I wanted to try out some more macro type shots with it. Mainly cuz I cant afford a $800 macro lens lol

Post some results if you can, I'm curious to see how this turns out!

Trust me, the tubes'll work better on the nifty. 17-40L is too wide and gets too close without enough magnification. I use tubes on my 200 2.8L, and nothing else (well 35L once). Tubes are better on longer lenses in general I find (ideally from 50-200mm).

but isnt it close to the same as the nifty when you have it at 40mm?

lbcyalater wrote in post #7084732
but isnt it close to the same as the nifty when you have it at 40mm?

Yeah but you lose light with tubes, and your viewfinder'll get pretty dark with the f/4 zoom. The f/1.8 really helps. Also nifty is sharper than the 17-40 at 40mm.

perryge wrote in post #7084742
Yeah but you lose light with tubes, and your viewfinder'll get pretty dark with the f/4 zoom. The f/1.8 really helps. Also nifty is sharper than the 17-40 at 40mm.

hmmm thanks for all the info! also is it worth it to buy the tubes for near $200 instead of just forking out maybe $150 more for an actual macro lens thats not top of the line?

lbcyalater wrote in post #7084778
hmmm thanks for all the info! also is it worth it to buy the tubes for near $200 instead of just forking out maybe $150 more for an actual macro lens thats not top of the line?

Depends how much you plan to shoot macro. I don't do much macro at all, so I got a set of Kenko tubes for about $150, not $200. Plus tubes can be used WITH macro lenses to get even more magnification, so in a sense they're always worth having.

So if you are not sure, I say get the tubes first, and if you find yourself doing a lot of macro, get a macro lens, and your tubes will still be really useful.

lbcyalater wrote in post #7084732
but isnt it close to the same as the nifty when you have it at 40mm?

Even closer because it is much longer, relatively speaking, and has a shorter (maximum) FL.

Less than about 35 mm even with a prime tends to be a pain when doing macro, except when the lens is designed for it specifically.

Kind regards, Wim

Quick question; how well would extension tubes work on the 85 1.8?
(Don't mean to hijack the thread)

Tumeg wrote in post #7085942
Quick question; how well would extension tubes work on the 85 1.8?
(Don't mean to hijack the thread)

I've done that combo, let me see if I can find a sample.

GEt an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

perryge wrote in post #7084580
Yup I've done it - but the 17-40L focuses so close anyway, that with tubes you're almost touching your subject.

I was gonna say. Tubes on the 17-40? Heck, if this lens were made to focus any closer, you'd be behind the subject...

Familiaphoto wrote in post #7086494
I've done that combo, let me see if I can find a sample.

where's the sample? i'm craving to see it as i'm about to purchase the 85mm..