MACRO LENS Q...

Well im just looking for something to get me reasonably close to the subject untill i buy a macro lens. When i do buy a macro lens then the $469 will defenetly be in my price range. But right now its not, hence the extension tubes.

So for the meantime do you think it would be best if i use a 25mm or the kenko tube set (68mm combined) with my 25-80mm lens?

That kenko tube set is pretty much the max i can spend unfortunately... i'll have to import it. I stay in South Africa and the currency conversion is killing me!

Yeah, I think that in this case, going with the Kenko tube set might be your best option. You then have the option of 3 tubes and using them in various combinations depending on the situation.

EDIT: 303 check out this tutorial on using extension tubes with a 70-200mm lens:
http://www.natureswild​scapes.com/MacroPart3.​htm

This will give you an idea about the amount of magnificaiton you can get. Also see the other Macro tutorials here:
http://www.natureswild​scapes.com/NW2/index.h​tml

Thanks for the help man !!

Macro on the cheap...

303. The lenses you mention are not good for adapting to macro.
Is your 80-200 decent? A f/2.8 or f/4 max aperture. If not, buy something like a used Canon 100-300 with rear element USM focus for under $200. Unheralded good lens for macro conversion.
If you are going to do snakes, do not use extension tubes. You have to get too close (insufficient working distance), lose too much light, and lose ease of focus. Get a 77mm Canon 500D +2 diopter for $140. Mount it using a 58-77mm step up ring, or X-77mm, whatever your lens filter diameter is. Reason for the 77mm? Max flexibility with other lenses and resale value.
You can get almost 0.7x life size with a rig like this, and still use it tripod mounted, which is pretty amazing. The old 80-200 Canon gets you about 0.5 x.

Here's the ref:

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …graphy/eosfaq/c​loseup.htm

J.

But if it's a 80-200 lens, you'll only need 80mm of extension for 1:1 if it's zoomed all the way out.

You'll be able to get closer to your subject and get a closer image at 80. If you switch to 200mm, you gain working distance but will sacrifice zoom (how large the object apears).

I have the Kenko set and can use it with my 50 1.8 to pull out detail from sand. A pea would fill most of the image. When I use it with my 70-200, I can get gradually farther from the object but it won't be as close to 1:1.

Since it's 3 pieces, you can also create several levels of extension to get varying distances from your subject and thus changing how big the object appears.

I love them, they're great!

Also, with all of the problems I've had with the nifty fifty at 1.8 up close, that seems to go out the window when using these tubes. It seems (so far) that what I see is what I get when it comes to depth of field and focal points. Of course I'll do more testing, but so far I like the extension tubes.

As far as the Kenko tubes "not feeling strong enough" I haven't really found a problem. Even with the 70-200 on the end of all 3, it seems solid enough. That being said, I don't think I'd want to mount that on a tripod and use it for a while... unless I had a collar (which I don't).
The 50mm works great with it and you can get incredibly close. Take the big tube out and you're closer to the same results as the 70-200 with all of them on.