Group Since Jul 19, 2010
Drag to set position!
Share
Sticky
Macro Extension Tubes
Rob B 1952
Posted 11 years ago
Hi All
Has anyone tried these, I was looking at some close up shots of bees, the detail was incredible. The guy used a standard 18-55 lens.
I have had a look at some on ebay and they are very cheap, compared to purchasing a dedicated lens. I take it the tube attaches to the camera and the lens attaches to the tube. Focusing is done manually with the lens. they dont have the electrical contacts for the lens to auto focus. Anyone else explain how these work? are they worth a try?
tks Rob
Has anyone tried these, I was looking at some close up shots of bees, the detail was incredible. The guy used a standard 18-55 lens.
I have had a look at some on ebay and they are very cheap, compared to purchasing a dedicated lens. I take it the tube attaches to the camera and the lens attaches to the tube. Focusing is done manually with the lens. they dont have the electrical contacts for the lens to auto focus. Anyone else explain how these work? are they worth a try?
tks Rob
Elengale
Posted 11 years ago
There are several means of getting into macro without a dedicated lens. You've got extension tubes, which increase the focal distance of the lens (in turn dropping minimum focal distance, resulting in a better use of the lens' original magnification), dioptic filters (which screw onto the end and act as magnifying glasses-- these don't do as well, since it's cheap glass that will distort heavily), and lens reversal rings (which are pretty popular, work well, and hit many of the same limitations as macro tubes-- as well as exposing your rear element).
Both lens reversal and extension tubes seem to be the way to go if you're doing macro on a budget. I've heard some more experienced photographers carry tubes still when they really need to get down into the heart of something. I started with dioptics and moved to a 90mm f/2.8 portrait macro (you can get these Tamron lenses for fairly cheap, and you'll have the same MF but the benefit of solid metering and a sharp portrait/medium-tele that will teach you MF), and then a 180mm f/3.5 Sigma APO.
I much prefer having the AF to get me in the ballpark, but having worked with both recently makes me feel that a macro lens isn't necessary-- just very convenient, since MF will tend to be the deciding factor if you're doing handheld macro (focus, lock, then shoot with your own breathing lines up with focus).
Both lens reversal and extension tubes seem to be the way to go if you're doing macro on a budget. I've heard some more experienced photographers carry tubes still when they really need to get down into the heart of something. I started with dioptics and moved to a 90mm f/2.8 portrait macro (you can get these Tamron lenses for fairly cheap, and you'll have the same MF but the benefit of solid metering and a sharp portrait/medium-tele that will teach you MF), and then a 180mm f/3.5 Sigma APO.
I much prefer having the AF to get me in the ballpark, but having worked with both recently makes me feel that a macro lens isn't necessary-- just very convenient, since MF will tend to be the deciding factor if you're doing handheld macro (focus, lock, then shoot with your own breathing lines up with focus).