Extension Tubes vs. Macro Lens

I am looking for a cheap alternative to macro photography. I am a wedding photographer and need it for ring shots and other details. It would also be nice to do some leisure macro photography as well. I like the sigma macros and i'm looking at the 50 because it's cheap but how would my canon 50mm 1.8 compare using extension tubes? Extension tubes are much less expensive but will they do the job as well as the sigma 50 macro? Thanks!

I'm not a wedding guy, but in my opinion, a set of tubes will actually work better for ring shots than a macro lens will.

Tubes are not really a replacement of a macro lens - but, for the shot you're describing, I think they'd be quite fine.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10820014
..... but in my opinion, a set of tubes will actually work better for ring shots than a macro lens will.

I'm not disputing what you say Todd but would be interested to know reasoning.

Bob

Extension tubes work well (I love mine). But, on a 50 1.8, AF will not really be a serious option, working distance will be very small at higher magnification ratios. I think that a macro lens will be more suitable to a wedding environment where you don't have all the time in the world to setup and focus those detail shots like rings. With extension tubes, you'll also lose more light, possibly need a different flash setup the closer you get. Then again, I am not a wedding photographer, so maybe all of these concerns don't matter.

For casual macro, extension tubes are great, but, even then, a nice macro lens is better. You can get good deals on Canon 100 macro lenses, the Sigma 105, the Tamron 90. And, I'd try to go for a focal length closer to 100 and a 1:1 lens as opposed to a 1:2 if I were you.

Finally, if you really want to do macro photography, you'll probably end up wanting a(many) macro lens(es) AND extension tubes. So, I guess you have nothing to lose by buying extension tubes to start with.

You can spend $40 to $50 and have a very small, very sharp and very easy to use macro lens.

M42 Manual tubes, macro is all manual focus. Enlarging lenses, I would start with something 90mm and no longer than a 135 lens. The tubes run about $15 used and the lenses are between $25 and $50.

I have an article on using enlarging lenses with bellows - but tubes do the same job and are portable.

https://sites.google.c​om …xpensivemacroph​otography/

Canon Bob wrote in post #10821420
I'm not disputing what you say Todd but would be interested to know reasoning.

Bob

Hey Bob.

My reasoning is that for a shot like a ring shot, where most cases, you're not going to shoot so close that a macro would really be needed. A lot of the time a shooter would just need to get closer than the MFD, which is exactly what tubes do.

Again, I'm not a wedding shooter, but from the ring shots I've seen, all of them could be accomplished with just a set of tubes and something like a 135L(which most wedding shooters would have).

Beyond ring shots, a set of tubes is a really interesting and useful tool for any photographer, and as someone else mentioned, if you do decide to go the macro route, a set of tubes certainly would come in handy as well.

Economically, extension tubes would be the way to go. But, for versatility, the macro lens would be better. If you are using the macro lens for the ring shots, and all of a sudden something interesting happens, you can swing the macro - re-focus, and get the shot. If you have extension tubes installed, it will take time to get back to a regular lens - unless you have multiple setups.

GJim wrote in post #10825690
Economically, extension tubes would be the way to go. But, for versatility, the macro lens would be better. If you are using the macro lens for the ring shots, and all of a sudden something interesting happens, you can swing the macro - re-focus, and get the shot. If you have extension tubes installed, it will take time to get back to a regular lens - unless you have multiple setups.

That is a good point, with tubes you will loose some flexibility to capture non macro or close up photos - it will take a moment to remount a normal lens.

However, you can get close and some unique out of focus capabilities. The photos were taken with a 135mm enlarging lens.

While not a ring, this is an example of a small pendant on a black granite tile.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10822848
Hey Bob.

My reasoning is that for a shot like a ring shot, where most cases, you're not going to shoot so close that a macro would really be needed. A lot of the time a shooter would just need to get closer than the MFD, which is exactly what tubes do.

Cheers Todd.....I couldn't figure out whether you were claiming an optical reason or a more simple logistical one.

Bob

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10822848
My reasoning is that for a shot like a ring shot, where most cases, you're not going to shoot so close that a macro would really be needed. A lot of the time a shooter would just need to get closer than the MFD, which is exactly what tubes do.

but the OP was asking about extension tubes with his 50 mm lens. When I used to have that lens, I tested with a full set of tubes and you need to be insanely close to the subject, much closer than with a macro lens.

I would really go with the macro lens, much more versatile, will not loose infinity focus, you might be using the lens for portrait as well and avoid having to switch too much.

Martin