macro, dedicated -vs- tubes test:

I recently took a 100mm macro in on trade for my sigma 20mm... It's a lens I owned ages ago, but rarely used. I've often wondered how it'd do against the tubes I have now, so I figured it'd be worth the trade to most likely sell later.

Here's what the 100mm macro can do -vs- tubes. All shots are at MFD for the lens. The 24-105 is zoomed all the way in (in a few cases it's at 102 0r 103, but exifs are intact). All lenses are wide open and all at manually focused to MFD then MOVED so the branch was roughly in focus.

24-105, no tubes:

100mm macro w/12+20=32mm tubes:

makes me wish i didnt sell my 100mm macro...such a nice, sharp prime

Thanks for the test. Too bad you put a zoom up against a great prime though. In general you can get great macro using tubes on any quality telephoto. Usually as good as a true macro lens. The macro lens shines when it comes to convenience. Tubes offer only a small range of magnifications.

You would actually do better using the tubes on your 50mm 1.4. Should be able to get near 1:1.

Interesting test, thanks.

gasrocks wrote in post #8257300
Too bad you put a zoom up against a great prime though.

say what? and as for magnifications, the tubes get the 24-105 down to 1:1 range, how much more do you really need/want?

tkbslc wrote in post #8257315
You would actually do better using the tubes on your 50mm 1.4. Should be able to get near 1:1.

I'll have to try that. I went with the 24-105 only because it's what I shoot my macros with, and also because the 105mm focal length is the closest to 100.

gasrocks wrote in post #8257300
Thanks for the test. Too bad you put a zoom up against a great prime though. ...

He used all the tubes he had on the 135mm L, you can see it was not very close, and thus only the one shot. IMHO the 135mm L is a great prime.

Yep, thats why I cant part with mine! Tried once before, bought it back shortly after!

You can add a 1.4x TC to the equation to get closer...that's what I do, since I am not too big on macro. It does the job when I need it...

nicksan wrote in post #8258924
You can add a 1.4x TC to the equation to get closer...that's what I do, since I am not too big on macro. It does the job when I need it...

A 1.4x TC + Tubes won't give you more magnification, just more working distance.

Thats the problem that the OP experienced when trying to use the 135L. Its MFD kept him further away from the subject, and the tubes only serve to allow you to focus closer than native MFD, but the native MFD is the lynchpin anyways.

In general, Macro photographers fall into 2 groups... (1) the people who want to get as close as possible to their subjects (these people buy the 60 Macros, 100 Macros), and (2) the people who feel they need some working distance (these people buy the 150 Macros and 180 Macros). Adding a TC to a lens even when it has a tube attached, extends its focal length.

I've done a bunch of macro stuff around the house with my 50/1.4 + 3 sets of tubes... and have experimented with my 2x TC in the mix. The 2x TC just forces me to move the rig back from the subject. I've taken some shots with my 50/1.4 + 3 sets of tubes (1 dumb set, 1 Kenko DG set, 1 macro bellows = all 3 = roughly 280mm of extension), the results are close to 10-12:1 magnification... very wild stuff.

For anything living tho, tubes can go so far, because they rob you of stops of light - something to the order of about 1-stop per 12mm of extension. The 3 sets together rob me of literally over 10 stops of light. The only way to shoot with such a rig is with LOTS of light sources (I used 5 LED flashlights to light a single bottle cap) and hence must be still-life subjects and you need a tripod. For my shots of snail fornication dubbed "Snails Gone Wild!" on my Flickr, I used my 100mm f/2.8 Macro + 1 set of tubes (Kenko) to maintain some semblence of speed and ability to handhold + used my RayFlash as a macro light to make it possible to shoot (those shots were taken outside after dusk with little streetlight to speak of).

Photographers can be divided into two groups: those who believe they can be divided into 2 groups and those who do not.

Ben, you'd find that if you zoomed out the 24-105 with the tubes on that you'd actually end up closer to the subject than you would at 105mm. The effect of the tubes goes with their extension as a proportion of focal length.

Madweasel wrote in post #8259155
Ben, you'd find that if you zoomed out the 24-105 with the tubes on that you'd actually end up closer to the subject than you would at 105mm. The effect of the tubes goes with their extension as a proportion of focal length.

yeah, I know, with ONLY the 20mm, @ 24mm FL the MFD is INSIDE the lens! but you don't get as much magnification....

but to clarify, the 135L portion of this test was shot with the 12 and 20 tubes. But the 36mm tube wasn't here so I couldn't test it. I'll restack all three when I get a chance, but I know my 24-105 will be closer anyway so it's kinda a moot point now.

Basically, for me, tubes are good enough. I don't do macro that often, so when I do see something, tubes and the lens on hand is more than enough. I wouldn't put the 100 in my bag day to day so when I did see something I'd miss it anyway. But with a 12 or 20mm tube being so small, I always have one on me (I keep one in each of my 2 bags).

Very nice examples -- thanks for posting this!

Bryan