Am using a Nikon D300 and am considering purchasing ways to try my hand at some close ups. I am considering the Canon 250D and/or Canon 500D close up filters. Or some extension tubes. Which is better? Or is there a better, just preference? I have the Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro lens. If extension tubes seem to be better, I would prefer to get the Nikon brand. Anything in particular to note in the differences between tubes, other than magnification levels? As my eyes are no longer the best, I would prefer to be able to use autofocus whenever possible. Suggestions anyone? I am not necessarily new to photography, but am trying to take less pictures and more photographs. I enjoy the nature type stuff. Not good with people. Any help highly appreciated.
Extension tubes vs. Close up filters
- Thread Starter D300Rob
- Start date
ronlane
What's next?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 10,224
- Reaction score
- 4,961
- Location
- Mustang Oklahoma
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Not sure if I can answer your question(s) properly but I'll give you something to think about. I just bought a set of extension tubes (off brand). I did this after looking at them and the filters. The reason I picked the tubes is because there is no glass. The reason that is important to me is because of all the talk I've read and heard about adding glass causes sharpness issues with the photos.
One other thing that I would question is the need for either with a macro lens. Can you use the tubes on a macro lens?
One other thing that I would question is the need for either with a macro lens. Can you use the tubes on a macro lens?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 25,277
- Reaction score
- 9,073
- Location
- Iowa
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Extension tubes: More expensive. May lose AF when stacked (depending on lens & camera). May not have electronic contacts. No glass to keep clean or scratch up. Larger & heavier.
Close-up Filters: Cheaper. More prone to optical flaws (chormatic abberation, distortion, etc). Glass is fragile. Smaller & lighter. Glass must be kept clean. May vignette when stacked.
Close-up Filters: Cheaper. More prone to optical flaws (chormatic abberation, distortion, etc). Glass is fragile. Smaller & lighter. Glass must be kept clean. May vignette when stacked.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,942
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
The two-element, achromatic closeup lenses, like the Canon 250D and 500D are VERY good. I have a 500D. I also have the older Nikon counterpart, the 6-T two-element achromatic close-up lens, which works very well when reverse-mouinted on the front of the 100-300mm Nikkor f/5.6 AiS lens.
Extension tubes like the high-quality Kenko AF tubes maintain autofocus and give full CPU reporting. MY experience is that either a 12mm or 13mm or 20mm to 25mm tube are the two most-useful lengths for most uses. The longer tube of 36mm is not as useful for me. Stacking all three tubes in a set is VERY challenging.
On a crop-frame camera, a telephoto lens that has a fairly good close focusing range, a QUALITY close-up lens works pretty well. An extension tube causes more light loss, but also works pretty well. "Adding glass" in the form of a QUALITY close-up lens like a Canon 250D or 500D, or a quality Raynox or Nikon 2-elelment lens does not cause a whole lot of degradation of the image, especially on a crop-sensor camera, since only the central part of the lens' image circle is being recorded, and also, these are not cheap, $10-for-a-set-of-three, single element + diopter lenses like those sold all over eBay.
Honestly, the 60mm macro lens range is not the best candidate for tubes or + diopter lenses...the focal length is already pretty short. I am going to run off a few exposures using the 6+ and post the results.
Extension tubes like the high-quality Kenko AF tubes maintain autofocus and give full CPU reporting. MY experience is that either a 12mm or 13mm or 20mm to 25mm tube are the two most-useful lengths for most uses. The longer tube of 36mm is not as useful for me. Stacking all three tubes in a set is VERY challenging.
On a crop-frame camera, a telephoto lens that has a fairly good close focusing range, a QUALITY close-up lens works pretty well. An extension tube causes more light loss, but also works pretty well. "Adding glass" in the form of a QUALITY close-up lens like a Canon 250D or 500D, or a quality Raynox or Nikon 2-elelment lens does not cause a whole lot of degradation of the image, especially on a crop-sensor camera, since only the central part of the lens' image circle is being recorded, and also, these are not cheap, $10-for-a-set-of-three, single element + diopter lenses like those sold all over eBay.
Honestly, the 60mm macro lens range is not the best candidate for tubes or + diopter lenses...the focal length is already pretty short. I am going to run off a few exposures using the 6+ and post the results.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 25,489
- Reaction score
- 5,093
- Location
- UK - England
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #5
A few thoughts:
1) Extension tubes. These work by moving the point of minimum and maximum focus closer to the lens. This removes the ability of the lens to focus on further off subjects (how far varies but it can be down to a few inches or less); but also increases its capacity to focus closer and thus give a more magnified photo.
Note that the rough maths for extension tubes us:
(length of the extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens) + native magnification of the lens = power:1.
This is the ratio of; Size of the subject reflected on the sensor by the lens : size of the subject in real life.
For example with a 100mm lens and 50mm of tubes you'd get:
(50/100)+0 = 0.5:1 or half life size.
Note I left the native to 0 in this example, a real lens will have a value, although if its not a macro lens it will typically be less than 0.5. For reference a macro lens has a magnification of 1:1 - also called life size.
As you can see extension tubes will give you more magnification on shorter focal length lenses. Note also that the point of focus can move inside the lens itself if you add too much extension tube length (relative to the lens focal length). This means that the lens would never be able to focus (even manually) on anything. Adding more than 1 set of extension tubes (65mm) tends to get tricky as you're moving the weight of the lens further and further forward and making the setup longer and longer.
Finally tubes come in two kinds, ultra cheap without metal contacts, and more expensive with metal contacts. You always want the latter kind for DSLRs. This is because without the contacts you can't control the lens aperture nor its auto focus; now whilst you'll likely turn off the AF for macro and use manual focusing, the aperture is something you will want control over.
Bellows work the exact same way, they just allow for a variable length instead of a fixed length. Most bellows also come without contacts.
2) Close up lens attachments. These work the same way that extension tubes do, however they give increased magnification on longer focal length lenses. I sadly don't have any quick/rough maths for them. They each have a diopter rating which marks the power of the element, the higher the power the more magnification you gain (the closer you can focus).
Note that there are two kinds of attachment - single element and multiple element. The single element are typically very cheap (oft sold in sets of 3 or 4) and offer very low grade optical quality. They work, but poorly and oft earn these elements a bad name overall.
The multiple element ones are a totally different ballgame and good options such as those made by Canon (250D and 500D) and Raynox (DCR 250, DCR 150, MSN 505 etc...) are very high grade optics. As such optical degradation is minimal; when you're then also stopping the lens down into generally sharper apertures this difference between them and extension tubes is basically impossible to detect with the human eye.
My personal preference is the close up lens attachments; they give you the magnification you want, whilst at the same time they are very fast to slip on and off without having to fiddle with taking the lens on and off the camera.
Whichever you choose remember that as you increase magnification you will typically also be increasing your lenses effective aperture - in fact most macro lenses on the current market already do this and whilst they start out at f2.8, most end up around f5.6 when focused to their 1:1 magnification point (Nikon cameras report this to the user - Canon ones don't). As a result diffraction is going to start softening your photos sooner than you expect, so whilst f16 might be good enough without, you might well find that you now want to use f13. The lens isn't getting softer, the aperture is just smaller than the camera is reporting and as result that diffraction kicking in sooner.
The Canon MPE65mm macro does this - by the time you're at the 5:1 magnification one is often using f5.6 or wider. The camera reports it as f5.6, but the actual effective aperture is far smaller (I think somewhere closer to f20).
1) Extension tubes. These work by moving the point of minimum and maximum focus closer to the lens. This removes the ability of the lens to focus on further off subjects (how far varies but it can be down to a few inches or less); but also increases its capacity to focus closer and thus give a more magnified photo.
Note that the rough maths for extension tubes us:
(length of the extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens) + native magnification of the lens = power:1.
This is the ratio of; Size of the subject reflected on the sensor by the lens : size of the subject in real life.
For example with a 100mm lens and 50mm of tubes you'd get:
(50/100)+0 = 0.5:1 or half life size.
Note I left the native to 0 in this example, a real lens will have a value, although if its not a macro lens it will typically be less than 0.5. For reference a macro lens has a magnification of 1:1 - also called life size.
As you can see extension tubes will give you more magnification on shorter focal length lenses. Note also that the point of focus can move inside the lens itself if you add too much extension tube length (relative to the lens focal length). This means that the lens would never be able to focus (even manually) on anything. Adding more than 1 set of extension tubes (65mm) tends to get tricky as you're moving the weight of the lens further and further forward and making the setup longer and longer.
Finally tubes come in two kinds, ultra cheap without metal contacts, and more expensive with metal contacts. You always want the latter kind for DSLRs. This is because without the contacts you can't control the lens aperture nor its auto focus; now whilst you'll likely turn off the AF for macro and use manual focusing, the aperture is something you will want control over.
Bellows work the exact same way, they just allow for a variable length instead of a fixed length. Most bellows also come without contacts.
2) Close up lens attachments. These work the same way that extension tubes do, however they give increased magnification on longer focal length lenses. I sadly don't have any quick/rough maths for them. They each have a diopter rating which marks the power of the element, the higher the power the more magnification you gain (the closer you can focus).
Note that there are two kinds of attachment - single element and multiple element. The single element are typically very cheap (oft sold in sets of 3 or 4) and offer very low grade optical quality. They work, but poorly and oft earn these elements a bad name overall.
The multiple element ones are a totally different ballgame and good options such as those made by Canon (250D and 500D) and Raynox (DCR 250, DCR 150, MSN 505 etc...) are very high grade optics. As such optical degradation is minimal; when you're then also stopping the lens down into generally sharper apertures this difference between them and extension tubes is basically impossible to detect with the human eye.
My personal preference is the close up lens attachments; they give you the magnification you want, whilst at the same time they are very fast to slip on and off without having to fiddle with taking the lens on and off the camera.
Whichever you choose remember that as you increase magnification you will typically also be increasing your lenses effective aperture - in fact most macro lenses on the current market already do this and whilst they start out at f2.8, most end up around f5.6 when focused to their 1:1 magnification point (Nikon cameras report this to the user - Canon ones don't). As a result diffraction is going to start softening your photos sooner than you expect, so whilst f16 might be good enough without, you might well find that you now want to use f13. The lens isn't getting softer, the aperture is just smaller than the camera is reporting and as result that diffraction kicking in sooner.
The Canon MPE65mm macro does this - by the time you're at the 5:1 magnification one is often using f5.6 or wider. The camera reports it as f5.6, but the actual effective aperture is far smaller (I think somewhere closer to f20).
WayneF
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2013
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 114
- Location
- Texas
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
What's wrong with the macro lens? This is normally the best solution by far, easily (excepting cost).
There are three ways to do closeups, macro lens, close up filters, or extension tubes (including bellows).
If you want auto focus, you definitely DO NOT WANT extension tubes. This is not just about auto focus, it is about any manual focus too.
Nikon is into macro lenses today, and has Not manufactured extension tube sets for many years (there still are a couple of special purpose tubes made). Simple to make them, but I suspect they don't sell well to novices. There are tubes made for Nikon lens mounts, like Kenko brand. Extension tubes just extend the lens forward. More tube length is more magnification. Lenses already long need even more extension to make much difference.
To get 1:1 magnification requires the same dimension extension as the original focal length, for example 30mm extension for a 30 mm focal length. This makes the new focal length be 2x, which gives 1:1, but it costs two stops of light (f/11 becomes f/32 actual - but concerning diffraction, it is still the f/11 diameter).
Another very strong effect (downside) is that with extension, the focus ring has very little effect then (if any), essentially it does absolutely nothing, so it becomes very necessary to focus by moving the camera or the subject back and forth to find the point where it does focus (awkward on a tripod, but focus rails are popular, and also the subject can be moved too).
Close up filters are just a strong simple magnifying glass filter in front of the lens. This changes the focus length to be closer, but not really as much as 1:1 magnifications. The lens can still focus or zoom (cannot still reach infinity), and there are no stops of light loss. It is just a magnifying glass. However, image quality is more problem, the lens has to be stopped down considerably to minimize loss of sharpness around the edges. The better closeup filters have dual elements (like the Canon 500D) to reduce color fringing.
Best for last:
Macro lenses are the best of all worlds. A genuine designed lens (not a kludge). They have long focusing capability, and normally easily focus from infinity to 1:1 (by simply rotating the ring, including auto focus - no special concerns). So in particular, they focus easily at any distance without concerns (just like any lens). Don't have to move the camera back and forth just to focus. There do have the same standard light losses at extreme closeup, but they are calibrated to account for it, and normal auto focus and auto exposure works well. Sharpest best images. Best of all worlds. Cost is the only issue.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 25,489
- Reaction score
- 5,093
- Location
- UK - England
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #7
Not sure if I'd agree with that Wayne.
First up I don't see why extension tubes are a problem for auto-focus; extension tubes with metal contacts will retain auto focusing. Yes you've lost some light but you'll still be able to use it. For close up work its typically not used; but I know many who setup hides and use 500mm f4 L lenses with an extension tube so they can focus closer than the lenses default 5ft min focusing distance - and they certainly use the AF for the birds.
On the subject of the focusing ring I agree that setting the focus and then moving back and forth is the right approach to macro focusing, but to say that the ring has no effect is missleading. In my experiences the ring has a very clear effect on the focusing, its just a lot easier to rock back and forth (since your body is doing that anyway) than it is to fight that motion by adjusting the focus ring. I've certainly used the focus ring to do short focus stack shot series when handholding.
As for why go beyond a macro lens's native 1:1 magnification - well the world is full of reasons.
Here's a 1:1shot.
And here is the same subject at 5:1
(the terrible different white balance proof that I didn't just crop
)
In the past (pre MPE 65mm ) I used a 1.4Teleconverter and a Raynox DCR 250. Here are the results with my 150mm (with a shorter focal length lens and no TC you'll get less magnifiaction - however a teleconverter is a valid way to boost magnification - the increase is the same as the teleconverters magnification value).
and a 100% crop
First up I don't see why extension tubes are a problem for auto-focus; extension tubes with metal contacts will retain auto focusing. Yes you've lost some light but you'll still be able to use it. For close up work its typically not used; but I know many who setup hides and use 500mm f4 L lenses with an extension tube so they can focus closer than the lenses default 5ft min focusing distance - and they certainly use the AF for the birds.
On the subject of the focusing ring I agree that setting the focus and then moving back and forth is the right approach to macro focusing, but to say that the ring has no effect is missleading. In my experiences the ring has a very clear effect on the focusing, its just a lot easier to rock back and forth (since your body is doing that anyway) than it is to fight that motion by adjusting the focus ring. I've certainly used the focus ring to do short focus stack shot series when handholding.
As for why go beyond a macro lens's native 1:1 magnification - well the world is full of reasons.
Here's a 1:1shot.
And here is the same subject at 5:1
(the terrible different white balance proof that I didn't just crop
)In the past (pre MPE 65mm ) I used a 1.4Teleconverter and a Raynox DCR 250. Here are the results with my 150mm (with a shorter focal length lens and no TC you'll get less magnifiaction - however a teleconverter is a valid way to boost magnification - the increase is the same as the teleconverters magnification value).
and a 100% crop
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 25,277
- Reaction score
- 9,073
- Location
- Iowa
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Entry-level bodies, coupled with a slow kit lens, will easily lose AF despite the contacts. The body's AF sensor just won't have enough light to operate.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,942
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
[FIRST TEST FRAME: 60mm macro with Nikon 6T reverse mounted on lens, focus set to 1 foot. Full-size SOOC JPEG at http://www.pbase.com/image/156051589 ]
[ SECOND test frame Nikon 60mm AF-D focused at 1 foot. Full-size SOOC JPEG located at http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/156051590 ]
[THIRD test frame,60mm macro with Nikon 6T reverse mounted, focus set at MFD Full-sized SOOC JPEG at http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/156051591.jpg ]
[FOURTH test frame.60mm macro AF-D focused to MFD. Full-sized SOOC JPEG at DSC_7271_60D at MFD.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]
Maybe you can see that at longer distances, the + diopter lens makes a significant difference. At MFD however, the lens has lost some effective focal length, to the extent that the Nikon 6T + Diopter lens has very little effect on overall magnification! When it comes right down to it, I look at the 60mm Micro-Nikkor as a lens that was really designed to copy FLAT artwork and documents, from a foot to ten feet distant, and NOT really as a lens that's ideal for close-in shooting of small subjects. The working distance is really VERY short with this lens. I greatly prefer a much longer macro lens, like a 90, 100, 105, or even a 180mm macro lens.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,942
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I would disagree with the autofocus and extension tubes comment as well: the best extension tubes for a Nikon d-slr are the Kenko AF tubes; they have autofocus as an option, and they have full CPU data transfer, which helps keep things straight, and also aids in TTL metering. There are now less-expensive AF-capable tubes being sold through Adorama's web site, which the last time I checked, was selling these less-expenmsive Kenko AF alternatives under the Pro-Optic brand name.
WayneF
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2013
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 114
- Location
- Texas
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
We all have preferences and opinions, and mine is the opposite. Sure, some extension tubes have AF contacts, which let focusing sort of "work" at greater intermediate (mild) distances, but I'd say give up all hope near 1:1 magnifications. My experience (without fail, at least with standard lenses) is to see virtually zero useful focusing range at 1:1. This is why focus rails were invented, to focus by moving the camera back and forth.
Evidence: Look up novice problems with "my lens will not focus with extension tubes". extension tubes wont focus - Google Search
The answer is "of course it can't, move the camera back and forth instead".
The OP wanted auto focus, therefore extension tubes are the worst way to go. A close up filter would be better (focusable, although they will work better on longer lens).
Extension tubes provide ONE magnification choice (without choosing different rings), and near 1:1, they focus at ONE camera position (which we have to find).
Or of course, focusing is simply no issue with a macro lens (at least up to its 1:1 limit).
There are choices, but in contrast, actual micro lenses are a real dream, they simply just work, as expected, really well.
ruifo
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 417
- Location
- Mexico / Brasil
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Se the initial 15min of this video. It will address your question. The full video is worthy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,942
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Nikon is pretty much out of the extension tube business, and Nikon shooters for over a decade have been buying and using the Kenko AF extension tubes with good results. I have owned a set of them since I guess about 2002, and they work pretty well with the Nikon 200mm f/4 Ai or Ai-S lenses, and the Nikkor 180mm AF-D. If you want to use extension tubes, the Kenko AF tubes are clearly the best ones, since they keep the automatic diaphragm control working properly, and preserve light metering with AF, AF-D, and G-series lenses, whereas older, Nikon-made tubes are not suitable for many AF cameras and lenses. You already have a macro lens, but it's of a focal length that's best for things like plants and small objects, and not really well-suited to high-magnification photography of SMALL areas.
You need to figure out how serious you want to get, and what kind of budget you have. You could spend a few hundred dollars, up to $1,000 for just a lens I suppose. I'd look into a used macro lens of some longer length, like a 150 or 180mm macro made by a third party maker, or the older Nikon 200mm Micro-Nikkor if you want a longer macro lens for insects, reptiles, butterflies, stuff like that. Like Wayne mentioned, a macro focusing rail is a nifty accessory. And then there is lighting! Flash, connecting cord, flash bracket, and so on.
You need to figure out how serious you want to get, and what kind of budget you have. You could spend a few hundred dollars, up to $1,000 for just a lens I suppose. I'd look into a used macro lens of some longer length, like a 150 or 180mm macro made by a third party maker, or the older Nikon 200mm Micro-Nikkor if you want a longer macro lens for insects, reptiles, butterflies, stuff like that. Like Wayne mentioned, a macro focusing rail is a nifty accessory. And then there is lighting! Flash, connecting cord, flash bracket, and so on.
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #14
If I understand what has been said. One, extension tubes may (or may not) retain auto focus. There will be light loss due to added length of tube. Two, with quality close up lenses, again, considering the Canon 250D and 500D, may possibly be a better choice, at least for me at this time. I was planning on getting the largest filter size for each and using step up rings if needed. Would be able to use on a variety of lenses that I have and see which I prefer. Make sense? Would this cause any IQ problems with the image? All comments are very much appreciated.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,942
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I think you'd be okay buying a large-sized Canon close-up lens and then using step-rings to fit it to lenses with smaller filter diameter threads. I've used a 77mm diameter Canon 500D on lenses with native 77mm threads, as well as on a couple lenses with 72mm threads using a step ring. I've been meaning to try to 500D on my medium format Bronica's 150mm f/4 PS lens with a step ring, but have not gotten around to it.
I "think" Canon's 250D is for lenses of under a certain length; not sure what the cutoff is intended to be. Don't quote me on that though!
I "think" Canon's 250D is for lenses of under a certain length; not sure what the cutoff is intended to be. Don't quote me on that though!
Most reactions
-
246 -
217 -
167 -
160 -
160 -
140 -
137 -
118 -
98 -
M
92
-
87 -
81 -
78 -
65 -
63
Similar threads
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/38/38264-552eb428d8a704186dcc43400f417d0f.jpg?1734172154)
