Extension Tubes? Or Macro lens?!

[786soul]

I've currently got the 24-70 2.8L which is a great lens even for 'some' macro photography however I'd like to explore more.

Am I better off with something like a Macro specific lens? (say the 100mm 2.8) or with extension tubes? I've heard that the tubes offer no loss of quality but closer focusing distances.

Which would be the better investment?

 

[tirediron]

Extension tubes are okay, but if the budget will run to it, I would go with the macro lens.

 

[NateS]

Both...but get the macro lens first...learn to use it at 1:1, then start adding tubes.

 

[786soul]

Would you say the longer the FL the better for macro photography? I.E 135mm over 100mm? Put aside quality of individual lenses but on FL alone.

 

[table1349]

Both...but get the macro lens first...learn to use it at 1:1, then start adding tubes.

I would possibly disagree with NateS here, depending on your degree of knowledge and desire to get involved with Macro. If you are on the fence so to speak and want to try it out, but not sure if you are going to really get into it, I would suggest tubes first to test the waters. The are by far cheaper than an new lens.

If however you know what you plan on doing and are just looking to expand on what you do now, then NateS's suggestion is what I would do.

 

[table1349]

Would you say the longer the FL the better for macro photography? I.E 135mm over 100mm? Put aside quality of individual lenses but on FL alone.

Canon does not make a 135 mm macro. The longer FL choices are 100 or 180. Both expensive pieces of L. glass. I do not know of anyone that make something in Canon mount in the 135 area. The are generally again in the 90-100 range or the 180 range. FL depends a lot on what you are going to shoot. The longer FL means longer working distances. Itty-bitty critters like space so you may want the 180. Still stuff doesn't care what you use so it doesn't matter. Personally I choose the 100 as it suited my needs more. I hate buying any single use items, and since I have a 200mmL (non-macro) I choose the 100Macro. It is an outstanding macro lens and a very nice general portrait lens as well. Just my take on the subject. Also, the 100 on tubes gives you plenty of working distance for critters if you feel you need it. I haven't found that I needed it, but I do use it sometimes.

 

[786soul]

Thanks!

I have no idea why 135mm was in my head with macro, anyhoo...

There is the 100mm non L lens from canon which was in my sights, for the most part I'm on a tripod so I'm not sure whether the extra $$ for IS will be worth it for me. That's if I go lens though.

I've seen a lot of people with "Kenko" extension tubes. Canon vs. Offbrand again but saving may be worth it? Any experience?

 

[table1349]

Thanks!

I have no idea why 135mm was in my head with macro, anyhoo...

There is the 100mm non L lens from canon which was in my sights, for the most part I'm on a tripod so I'm not sure whether the extra $$ for IS will be worth it for me. That's if I go lens though.

I've seen a lot of people with "Kenko" extension tubes. Canon vs. Offbrand again but saving may be worth it? Any experience?

I have the 100 mm f2.8 MkI (nonL, non IS) and love it. I also have the Kenko tubes. They have never been an issue with me or anyone I know that has them. Plus the kit comes with 3 sizes at a much cheaper cost than the Canon version. If you are a tripod user then IS is really a moot point. I have no trouble hand holding my 100. Of course I am usually shooting itty-bitty critters in the daylight. They tend to be harder to find at night, or I am using added lighting in the way of a couple of 580's on a macro flash bracket.

 

[Idahophoto]

I would go the lens. I plan on also grabbing a 100/2.8 then some tubes later on at some point. I want to get the X5 eventually lens but that will be awhile.