What is "decent results" when it comes to macro photography?

[nickzou]

So I was bored today (once again, rendering animations) so I decided to try out the zero dollar approach to macro photography; flipping your lens around. I was quite surprised with what I managed to get with my 50 1.4. I used my flash and a hotlight (I had for some video class) for lighting. And the images are sharp as sharp can be.

Often what I've heard about extension tubes, and I'm thinking of getting some now because I enjoyed my experiment with macro photography, is that they get "decent results" but a macro lens is always the way to go. What makes the extension tubes "decent" while the macro lens excellent or whatever? I don't think it is an issue of sharpness or colour because from what I've seen you can get crystal sharp images with a nice prime. Is it the chromatic aberration that sets the lens apart from the tubes?

 

[cgipson1]

Tubes and a good prime can be as sharp and CA free as any macro lens. It is all in how it is used. The main advantage to a true macro lens is that they are engineered specifically for macro.. and to give as much DOF as possible at the maximum magnification focal range. They are also designed to maximize the distance between the lens and subject at closest focus. Tubes and a prime will give just as good IQ, just not as conveniently as the DOF will typically be shallower and the closest focus distance may be VERY close to the subject.

You will typically lose several stops of light with tubes, but that happens with lenses also. As long as the tubes communicate with the meter, it makes working with them much easier since the camera will compensate for any differences, and show what is needed for a good exposure.

One advantage tubes have.. is that they can be stacked.. as long as the stack isn't so long that the internal focal point misses the sensor. They can also be used with almost any lens.

hope that helps.