Paris

by Jon

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

After playing around with macro photography on-the-cheap (read: reversed lens, rev. lens mounted on a straight lens, passive extension tubes), I would like to get further with this. The problems with the techniques I used is that focus is manual and aperture control is problematic at best. This limited my setup to still subjects (read: dead insects) Now, as spring is approaching, I want to be able to shoot live insects. I believe that for this, autofocus and settable aperture will be of great help.

So, one obvious but expensive option is a macro lens (say, EF 100mm Macro) However, I am not really interested in yet another prime lens. An alternative is the electrical extension tubes.

Except for maximum focusing distance, what am I losing when using tubes (coupled with a fine lens, say EF70-200/2.8) instead of a macro lens?

share|improve this question
    
Have you tried a Canon FD, Nikon, or M42 lens? Most have aperture controls on the lens. If you don't mind the loss of sharpness from 40-year-old lens design and coating, you can get one cheap to use with your extension tubes. Still no AF, of course. –  drewbenn Feb 23 '11 at 6:30
    
@drewbenn - I thought about buying a used FD lens or a Nikon one, but couldn't find one cheap enough to justify it. I used the technique of setting the aperture while the lens was connected normally, then unmounting it from the camera and reversing it. It works, but it is clumsy. Additionally, using such lens does not solve the autofocus problem. –  ysap Feb 23 '11 at 7:31
    
If you don't mind me asking, what's your definition of 'cheap enough?' KEH has excellent-grade FD 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 lenses for under $50; the adapter is another $15 from eBay. Nikon lenses are a little more but useful beyond 2 feet. Not starving-college-student cheap, but still inexpensive. Or are you just allergic to manual focus? ;) –  drewbenn Feb 23 '11 at 8:02
    
@drewbenn - at the time, I couldn't justify the $60-$70 on that. Not that I couldn't afford that, but couldn't justify to myself, given I found out the set-aperture-then-reverse technique. I am not allergic to MF, as you could tell from the plethora of techniques I used for macro, but I think it is just not sufficient for non-static scenes (I might be wrong thinking that AF is going to solve that). –  ysap Feb 23 '11 at 9:06

7 Answers 7

up vote 10 down vote accepted

as others have noted you lose light but with extension tubes you gain versatility that is sometimes not available with a EF 100.

I have a EF70-200/2.8 that I use with extension tubes (kenko 12mm, 20mm, 36mm) especially for taking photos of insects. the Minimum Working Distance from the front of the lens to the subject with the lens zoomed to 200mm:

58cm with 12mm extension tube
72cm with 20mm extension tube
86cm with 36mm extension tube

setting the lens to the 70mm position brings your MWD numbers down to the 30cm range

I have the EF 100 macro that I prefer using whenever its expedient but very often the bugs get nervous and skitter away when I get close enough to fill the frame with them. So I use the 70-200 with extension tubes so I can position the lens a couple feet from them and still get very sharp pictures of the bug.

I prefer to not use a flash to take pictures of bugs for a number of reasons consequently another problem with the EF 100 is that when I come in close I often end up blocking the light source or casting a shadow over the subject that changes the dynamic of the picture. By using the extension tubes and the EF 70-200 I can take advantage of a natural light source.

When I do use a flash I use a Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite (I tried a lot of other options and finally bit the bullet) mounted on the EF 100.

as a side note, while purists will sniff disdain, I do stage shots with live bugs - usually what I do is capture several of them the day before and store then in Tupperware in the refrigerator overnight then bring them to the scene I want for a backdrop in a cooler. The cold doesn't kill them but it does slow them down quite a bit so you can stage the shot. Also butterflys are suckers for hummingbird feeder juice made with vodka - they drink some of it then they perch somewhere nearby and move their wings very slowly and don't seem to mind if you get real close to them. Of course if they drink too much and fall over on their side its not a pretty picture.

share|improve this answer
3  
thanks for the detailed answer. I liked the Vodka part... –  ysap Feb 23 '11 at 8:47
    
what is the MFD with the 70-200? –  ysap Feb 23 '11 at 9:07
    
@ysap edited the working distances I use into the msg –  kloucks Feb 23 '11 at 15:13
2  
LMAO!!! Serve vodka to a butterfly... that's light.. –  Andrei Rinea Oct 8 '11 at 19:39

First of all, I think your quest to avoid macro lenses is misguided. The simple fact is, a true macro lens will be sharper, more versatile, and easier to handle than any of the alternatives to that. Either way, however, autofocus when dealing with a small subject and razor thin DoF is pretty much a non-starter, you'll need to get good with manual focus or you will have to deal with the camera hunting for focus.

Anyways, the downsides to the alternatives are:

1) Several stops of light. Extension tubes can cut a lot of light and some times that light is very important, especially dealing with small, and moving, subjects.

2) Sharpness. You're going to put either distance or glass between the lens and the sensor and either of these will impact the overall sharpness of the lens. This may be acceptable, but you should be aware.

In any case, my experience says that if macro is something you really want to shoot, then you need to go to a proper lens, designed for this. Everything else is simply going to be a step on a path and will cost you more in the end.

share|improve this answer
1  
As far as "cost you more in the end" - possibly, but you can always use the tubes on a macro lens to get more than 1:1. –  rfusca Feb 23 '11 at 4:38
    
+1 for singing the macro's praises. I own the EF 100mm Macro, and I absolutely love it. It takes gorgeous shots and the 100mm (160mm equivalent on my camera) makes for some great composition/DoF. –  D.N. Feb 25 '11 at 2:39

To give some idea of how things work out, here are a few pictures (all of a US dime, to give an idea of the scale). There are all of the full (APS-C) frame, not cropped, to give an idea of how large an area you get with each. First, a 100 mm macro at 1:1:

enter image description here

Then, the same lens plus 68mm of extension tubes (a bit OOF, but still gives an idea of how much area it takes in):

enter image description here

Then, the 100mm macro 1:1 + a 55 mm macro reversed in front of it (but no extension tubes):

enter image description here

And, 100 mm macro at 1:1 + 55mm macro reversed + 68mm of extension tubes:

enter image description here

Finally, 100 mm macro at 1:1 + 35mm reversed + 68 mm of extension tubes:

enter image description here

As you can see, the reproduction ratio depends on the ratio of the focal lengths -- a longer rear lens or shorter front lens increases magnification.

And as a completely off-topic aside, it's amazing how the same dime transforms from shiny and new to scratched almost to death as you get closer... :-)

Extension tubes do lose quite a lot of light -- and the loss of light is compounded by the fact that especially in the last few shots, the lens is so close to the subject that getting light on the subject becomes quite difficult. A typical ring-light sticks out from the front of the lens too far to use for these, even if you had a way to mount one to a reversed lens. For the last few, I was hand-holding a flash light, almost parallel to the surface to get light into the narrow space between the lens and the subject.

share|improve this answer
1  
I've been get some conflicting reports about extension tube light loss vs normal macro lens light loss (at 1:1). Does the macro lenses not internally shift its elements forward to achieve 1:1, thereby causing the same loss? Is there light loss on the macro at all at 1:1? –  rfusca Jun 28 '11 at 6:21
2  
@rfusca: yes, a macro lens will usually lose at least close to the same amount of light at 1:1 as you'd get from using extension tubes (about 2 stops). An internal focusing lens will normally reduce the focal length (a little) as you focus closer, which I suppose has some effect, but not much (the focal length doesn't usually change a whole lot). Most modern cameras kind of ignore this though; an f/2.8 wide open will be displayed as f/2.8, even at 1:1, where the actual speed is something like f/6. –  Jerry Coffin Jun 28 '11 at 6:27
    
Thanks, Jerry, for the comparison. –  ysap Jun 28 '11 at 12:07
    
Great comparison, I never considered using a reversed lens with a macro lens before. Turns out there are 62mm to 52mm macro reversing rings to go between my Nikon 105mm macro and my Nikon 50mm f/1.4D, which fortunately has aperture and focusing rings. I can use my flash off-camera so I can pull off lighting at such a tiny focusing distance. –  Derrick Coetzee Aug 6 '12 at 5:27
    
FYI sample image I got with my 105mm and reversed 50mm f/1.4D at flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/7723417858 –  Derrick Coetzee Aug 6 '12 at 6:50

Especially on internal-focus designs, you'll often run into problems with field curvature and longitudinal chromatic aberrations. (Every lens is slightly different, you'd need to test.)

The field curvature may be no big deal -- it depends on the type of subject you want to shoot. With round or organically-shaped things, it's usually not a problem, but if you're the type who insists on photographing his stamp collection (I actually knew somebody like that) it can be hell trying to find a focus point that will allow DoF to bring the subject into focus.

LCAs, though, can be truly annoying. Again, if your lens doesn't show much bad behaviour, go ahead and use it.

While I've been typing this, I've seen two answers come in to warn about the dangers of light loss. Again, don't worry about it -- it isn't unique to tubes. Any time you focus very closely, you are increasing the effective length of the lens, so you are also decreasing the effective aperture. At 1:1 magnification, you lose two full stops. That's a fact of life, and it doesn't matter whether you focused in that closely using tubes or using a macro lens. If you can meter through the lens, it's all taken care of for you. If you are metering manually, you'll need to compensate by the appropriate amount regardless of the setup you use. (Diopters are a special case, but they're also the worst way to go about it.)

Using a macro lens makes your life easier, and you know that a good macro lens is going to perform well at macro distances. The field is flat, and the CA behaviour has been tuned to give good performance at long rear focus distances. And if the cost of the EF 100 is a turn-off, take a look at the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 -- it's a magnificent lens at every distance from infinity to 1:1, and it's less than half the price of the Canon.

share|improve this answer
    
Ok, so I ran a test. Putting the extension tubes to get as close to 1:1 as I can loses a bit more than 2 stops of light in a scene for me. The shutter dropped from 1/8th to 1 second. –  rfusca Feb 23 '11 at 4:13
    
I'd bet that the lens is an internal focus lens. If you could use tubes alone and leave the lens focused at infinity, you'd find that 2 stops would do it. (The lens is extended to twice its focal length at 1:1. IF changes the whole geometry because focusing actually changes the focal length of the lens --- it gets shorter as you focus closer, and the aperture is usually situated in the optical path such that it remains at the same relative size to the changing focal length. IF makes manual calculations hard -- you'd need to create a compensation chart for your lens.) –  user2719 Feb 23 '11 at 4:49
    
Hmm...have to investigate. –  rfusca Feb 23 '11 at 4:58
    
I had the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 for 3 years and it is an excellent lens as you note and especially the contrast and clarity were outstanding, but eventually I wanted something that would autofocus faster so I traded it for an EF 100. –  kloucks Feb 23 '11 at 15:28

I just got extension tubes, so here's the skinny.

...what am I losing when using tubes...?

A very considerable amount of light! Increasing that distance from the end of the lens to the sensor can cut your light several stops. Combined with the fact that you'll usually shoot stopped down - expect to need to increase your ISO considerably.

The fact the macro's are usually considered very very sharp, although I believe that 70-200mm 2.8 is supposed to be quite sharp.

The ultra low distortion typical of many macros.

I wouldn't worry too much about the bokeh since the DOF will still be quite limited.

Coupled on my 50mm, a full 60mm'ish extension tube results in a DOF of about a couple inches in front of the lens. On my 70-300, its probably around 2-3 feet in front of the lens to about a foot in front of the lens.

share|improve this answer
    
So, the Minimum Focusing Disatnce at 300mm is about 2-3 feet? It will probably make the 200mm around 2 feet. –  ysap Feb 23 '11 at 8:56

You'll also loose some light with extension tubes. Not to mention you'll loose the cool bokeh of the 100mm lens. Also, zoom lenses will do strange things with extension tubes, zooming out will dramatically change the focus, for instance. Also, from the experience of @rfusca, I understand that the range can be quite limited, maybe only a few inches, depending on the lens.

Still, the electrical connected ones can be a step somewhere between, and are much better than the screw on lenses that exist.

share|improve this answer

Have several FD Lenses from another life - I use the 50 mm / f1.8 with an extention tube - results are good to very good.

If you have the lens(es) use them - see if you like Macro photog. - use a tripod, take your time and ENJOY

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for sharing your experiences! Could you please expand your answer a little bit? Right now, you aren't actually answering the question being asked (what is lost when using extension tubes instead of a macro lens). It sounds like you have experience in this area, and your answer could be great if you included more detail about the differences between the two techniques. –  Laura Aug 9 '12 at 20:55

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.