What's the general consensus on macro extension tubes?

[lyonsroar]

I got these:
MCAETEOSP Pro Optic Budget Auto Extention Tube Set for Canon EOS SLR Cameras

It takes a lot of experimentation and patience when you first start using them, but it's pretty awesome. Well worth the $50 for the set...

 

[mjhoward]

Here you go: Buck's DIY MFB

Very nice :thumbup:

 

[Ron Evers]

Minolta 55/1.7 & Panasonic G1


1. one tube (Shortest)

2. Two tubes

3. Three tubes

 

[Derrel]

EXCELLENT demo, Ron!

 

[arcooke]

Awesome! Thanks ron

 

[arcooke]

First test shot with my new toobz. Pretty satisfied with them. Used my 18-105mm kit lens at full 105mm. Some focus problems, I know. Just wanted to give them a quick try. The guy in the picture is a little 1.5" plastic figure, completely full of dust from sitting in a box in my closet for 10 years. Haha. What you're seeing is about 1/2" of his body.

 

[Ron Evers]

Welcome to macro.

 

[LittleMike]

Sorry to hi-jack your thread, but this got me wondering. Are all extension tubes more or less created equal? It seems that since there isn't any glass to look through that one would be just as good as another. I'm seriously considering getting some now, but don't know if there's a difference between the costly Canon brand, the $170 Kenkos, or the $70-$80 Zeikos or Opteka. I understand that the build quality and strength of the more expensive models may be better, but would it affect image quality?

 

[Ron Evers]

I understand that the build quality and strength of the more expensive models may be better, but would it affect image quality?

NO!

The more expensive ones will allow communication between your lens & camera but not the very basic ones.

I use cheap $10 ones from China, one set for M42 fit & one set for Minolta fit. Later I picked up a set of Quality tubes for Minolta @ a pawn shop for $10 that would link the lens to a Minolta camera auto system but they do not make any difference in image quality. I always set the aperture on the lens with legacy lenses & manual focus so the auto features mean nothing to me.

 

[reznap]

I understand that the build quality and strength of the more expensive models may be better, but would it affect image quality?

NO!

The more expensive ones will allow communication between your lens & camera but not the very basic ones.

Which is a very big deal in my opinion. I had a cheap ebay set (10$) and I didn't enjoy using them. First, I had to attach my lens (say, 50mm f/1.8) to the camera and set the aperture to what I wanted to get a decent DOF... say f/16. Then I had to dismount the lens while holding down the depth of field preview button and mount the lens on the extension tubes. After mounting it to the camera, you're trying to get focus though a tiny hole in the lens (it's stuck at f/16) so the image in the viewfinder is extremely dark.

Cheap tubes are good for experimentation and maybe testing yourself to see if you're interested in macro.. but they're not very functional. I now have Opteka tubes (similar to the Zeikos ones that Derrel mentioned) which have electrical contacts and are much easier to use. I've heard that some people have lens communication problems when stacking all 3 tubes, but I guess I'm lucky because they work fine for me.

 

[Ron Evers]

Good point Paul, I did not think of Canon/Nikon old tech with mirrors & prisms. I am using a camera that provides full lighting in the viewfinder no mater what the aperture is set at.