Extension tubes vs. waiting...

manaheim · Apr 19, 2011

So I've done some searching and there are plenty of extension tube discussions, and I know there is the limitation of it cutting down light, and I know you need to be sure to purchase the "better ones" or you lose aperture control, but here's my question...

Are they good enough to buy to experiment with, or will I just be so annoyed by their limitations that I should wait until I'm ready to buy a better lens?

See the thing is I've finally hit a point where I'm pretty sure I need/want a macro lens, and I can certainly afford the Nikkor 60mm or even the Nikkor 105mm with AF... I'm just not looking to blow that money NOW because I'm hanging onto the money to purchase a D800 when it comes out, and want to purchase that the SECOND it hits the market.

So I COULD blow $200 and pick up a set of extension tubes and use it with my 50mm 1.8, but I'm not sure if it will just frustrate me for some unsaid reason due to some limitation or another, or if they'll really work pretty well and I'll just lose some light or whatever.

I guess I'm looking for experienced opinions and reactions on the experience with both solutions and a comparison between same. Real life feelings on using either, how it went, what you encountered, etc.

Note I'm posting this in beginners, because I am a beginner in this space, but hoping to get an experienced response.

Thoughts very much appreciated.

Thanks, all!

Dao · Apr 19, 2011

My personal preference will be go after the used macro lens.

i.e. the Tamron 90mm macro lens (the old one, maybe even manual focus one) I think it may cost around $2xx
or buy a cheap 100mm f/3.5 macro lens that is made by Cosina around $100 (Flickr: Cosina 100mm f/3.5 Macro) You can find the same lens under different brands such as Vivitar, Promaster, Phenoix .... slrgear review Vivitar Lens: Primes - Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 AF Macro - SLRgear.com!

I was looking for that 100mm f/3.5 lens before for Canon, but at the end, pick the old version of Canon EF 100mm for a little over $300 on ebay. But now, after shooting macro for a little while, I really do not mind using the old manual focus only lens with a adapter that has focus confirmation.

Edit: From what I read here, there is a old Nikon 105mm f/4 (maybe AIS) lens as well that may worth a closer look.

tirediron · Apr 19, 2011

The nice thing about extension tubes is that you can use them with ANY of your lenses, so for instance, if you want to use your 600mm f4 (Min focusing dist. 13m)sliding a 12mm extension may reduce to that to say 5m (Rough numbers, I'm going from memory here). This adds a LOT of versatility to your existing glass for not a lot of money (a set of Kenko tubes should be available for well under $150 new and under $100 used giving you full exposure control). You do lose a little bit of light, and they can be fiddly, BUT there's no optical quality loss.

Personally, if you're not planning on doing a LOT of dedicated macro shooting, I'd go for the tubes.

Super Simple · Apr 19, 2011

tirediron said:
The nice thing about extension tubes is that you can use them with ANY of your lenses, so for instance, if you want to use your 600mm f4 (Min focusing dist. 13m)sliding a 12mm extension may reduce to that to say 5m (Rough numbers, I'm going from memory here). This adds a LOT of versatility to your existing glass for not a lot of money (a set of Kenko tubes should be available for well under $150 new and under $100 used giving you full exposure control). You do lose a little bit of light, and they can be fiddly, BUT there's no optical quality loss.

Personally, if you're not planning on doing a LOT of dedicated macro shooting, I'd go for the tubes.

I JUST bought the Kenko extension tube set today for $152 AUD. That's in Australia where everything is much more expensive, so I'm quite sure that they can be purchased in the US for less.

manaheim · Apr 19, 2011

Ok great info so far, and thank you. A question I hadn't sorted out on the tubes... I know the tubes cut down light, but they don't limit your aperture, right? So I could still use f1.8 on my 50mm if I so chose?

Also... I assume it would increase the DOF a little bit since the lens would also be a little further away from the camera, right?

Derrel · Apr 19, 2011

No, the tubes will cut the light's effective aperture down, so although the lens could still be used at f/1.8, the "effective" aperture would go down, and you will lose light, as the saying goes. Also, as the image magnification increases, depth of field will be shallower. As far as macro lenses go, that older Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro lens was actually not that bad!!! I saw a lot of decent work come out of those when they were popular, but I am not sure that the thing can still be bought. The Cosina's selling price of $109 was costing the auxillary lens and tube market a lot of sales. As far as a 3-tube set with just a 50mm lens....ehhh...not all that fun to play with. And the 60mm Micro-Nikkor....I own one....hardly ever use it, except to copy documents, which is what it seems like it was optimized for!!! 60mm in a macro lens is too short a focal length, IMHO, for general use. As Dao points out, the older 105mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor is also a very fine lens.

Addendum: Not sure what exact Nikon body you have....but if you have one that will use Ai or Ai-S accessories, you can always do the ghetto extension tube thing, and locate a cheap, older manual focus 1.5x to 2.0x telephoto converters made from roughly 1977 to 2011 in Nikon manual focus mount, and remove the glass from it, and then you will have an aperture-control linked, "extension tube". I see these old TC going for $15-$25 most places.

Ron Evers · Apr 19, 2011

If you were to use a 50mm tube with a 50mm lens you would achieve a 1:1 macro. With a wide aperture (f1.8) your DOF would be razor thin so one typically uses f11 or smaller shooting macro. Also, you need to manual focus as auto is not reliable in macro work as the camera may pick the wrong place to focus.

I personally like manual lenses on tubes so I can set the aperture & focus with the lens.

Edsport · Apr 19, 2011

If the tubes has electrical contacts you can still set aperture but as Ron stated, using 1.8 will be too shallow. I use a 12mm tube and i think it's great...

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Apr 19, 2011

I hear the Sigma 180mm 3.5 is a killer macro lens ( Its discontinued currently but went for $699 and I believe you can still get them as Sigma is probably going to release some new fangled version ). I have the Tamron 60mm f/2 which I love for portraits ( other than its long focus range being a macro and all ) but rarely actually use it at 1:1. It does take a 1.4x converter rather nicely though if I need some more working room or extra magnification. I have found more often than not, I prefer my 70-200 2.8 IS with a tube or two to allow more detailed shots of things like flowers and bees and such. Not 1:1 but more useful and versatile for my typical day of shooting. Its easy to keep a 25mm tube in your pocket to slap on whenever you happen to come upon something where it would be needed. Thats just me though.

EDIT: I have the kenko tube BTW.

Helen B · Apr 19, 2011

The change in effective f-number is simply a result of the lens being moved away from the image plane, and it applies to any method of doing that: extension tubes, bellows or just a lens barrel that has a long focus throw. It affects all macro lenses though many modern ones, including the two Nikon 60 mm lenses, decrease the effect by shortening the focal length of the lens as it is focussed closer. Older lenses like the 105 mm f/4 do not have this feature and they will 'lose light' as they focus closer. It's not really a loss of light, by the way, it is just the same amount of light being spread out more as magnification increases.

I use Nikon PB-4 bellows with a variety of relatively cheap lens heads and enlarging lenses. PB-4 bellows have tilt and shift. You may need a short extension tube to fit the bellows onto your camera - the D3 needs one otherwise the battery bulge fouls the bellows. Remember that you can reverse your 50 mm at very close distances using a reverse adapter.

The drawback of 50 mm and 60 mm lenses with macro can be the short working distance.

Best,
Helen

djacobox372 · Apr 20, 2011

You can find tubes with the aperture link on bay for $30 or less. CPU tubes are more.

manaheim · Apr 20, 2011

Thanks everyone, this is great.

I've decided to start off with the tubes to experiment as I believe I can get around their limitations by using static subjects (which is my intent anyway- I HATE BUGS) and a tripod.

Ron- thanks for the comments on the aperture and the manual focus. Those were rattling around in my brain a lot and will help me also make some decisions if/when I go for a full lens.

Goonies- particularly interested and appreciate your comments on the 70-200. I have that lens and had dimissed the possibility of using it for this, but it sounds like I should at least try- particularly since my intent is actually shooting flowers.

BTW I also snagged something from my buddy- he has this little amplification lens that clamps onto the front of an existing lens. He and I horsed around with it before- far less light lost and AF still works (hunts a bit though). It's an interesting option at $50, so I'll do some comparisons between his solution and the tubes and let you guys know what I find out (if you care).

Thanks, all!!!