# What's the general consensus on macro extension tubes?



## arcooke (Dec 29, 2010)

Just curious about what those who have ACTUALLY USED THEM (as in, I'm not interested in hearsay or speculation) have to say about them.  Seems these tend to be a controversial subject from what I've seen around.

I've been wanting to get a macro lens to see if that's something I'd like doing.. but thought it might be smarter/cheaper for me to drop a few bucks on extension tubes first instead.

Would they pair nicely with my nifty fifty?

Amazon has a fairly well-reviewed set of Zeikos tubes for $75, which is easy to swallow (there's 3 of them: 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm). 

Thoughts?

Thanks :thumbup:


----------



## Derrel (Dec 29, 2010)

I have a few sets of tubes...in vintage from the 1970's to the 2000's...for $75 the three-tube Zeikos set looks pretty decent. A 50mm 1/8 will work "okay" with extension added...it'd be nice to have a longer lens available too, something in the 85 to 200mm focal length range is often nice.


----------



## arcooke (Dec 29, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I have a few sets of tubes...in vintage from the 1970's to the 2000's...for $75 the three-tube Zeikos set looks pretty decent. A 50mm 1/8 will work "okay" with extension added...it'd be nice to have a longer lens available too, something in the 85 to 200mm focal length range is often nice.



Thanks.  I also have my 18-105mm kit lens, how would that fare? 

Any comments on the sharpness/overall quality of shots taken with extension tubes compared to a dedicated macro lens (assuming a decent lens is attached, of course)?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 29, 2010)

The 18-105 ought to fair okay with tubes, at the longer settings. At short focal lengths, the tubes will cause the MFD to be inside the lens barrel itself,so....

Using a regular lens with tubes will give decent results on most real-world, 3-D subjects, as long as the lens is stopped down a little bit. FLAT, highly-detailed items, like say stamps or currency, will show the optical weaknesses at the edges of the frame, but the center of the image is usually pretty good with a regular zoom, whereas with a dedicated macro lens, the image quality will be very high to excellent, across almost the entire frame. On real-world scenes, the edges of the frame are quite often out of focus background stuff...and so the edges really do not impair the image in any meaningful way.


----------



## arcooke (Dec 29, 2010)

Very helpful info, thanks Darrel!


----------



## Buckster (Dec 29, 2010)

Extension tubes seem to be a controversial subject? Guess I musta missed that one (and probably glad I did)...

I started my macro journey with a reversed 50mm lens on a Nikon F about a million years ago using a really cheap adapter. Here's one of my shots with that:

_Cigarette Ash_






Eventually, I got a set of Kenko extension tubes and my macro capability expanded. Here's a shot using them on a 100-400mm lens:

_Tongue Tasting Monarch _





Then I got a 180mm Macro lens:

_Monarch With Pink Buds _





And I often put my extension tubes on it to get in even closer to my subjects:

_Eye Of The Dragonfly_





I like extension tubes and recommend them to anyone who wants to start shooting macro, especially on a budget. Even after one gets a true dedicated macro lens, the tubes will continue to be something that can be used effectively in the pursuit of macro photography.

Controverial, huh? Pfft... Fiddle-faddle, I say.


----------



## NateS (Dec 29, 2010)

I absolutely could not live without my tubes.  I use it to go beyond 1:1 but there are so many shots of small critters that I can get shots of with tubes than without.  You lose some light which can make the viewfinder a bit dimmer, but outdoors, I never have a problem seeing and focusing...even with the full set (all 3) tubes on.  I have Kenko Tubes, but the same rules apply.

On my site, probably 90 percent of the insects and arachnids were shot with at least one tube attached.  My most common and "go-to" setup is the full set of tubes with my 180mm macro...you wont' regret the tubes purchase and I only regret not getting a set sooner.


----------



## arcooke (Dec 29, 2010)

Great shots there.  That dragonfly has a striking resemblance to Homer Simpson


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 29, 2010)

While we're on the subject of Macro (and noticing that the OP also uses Nikon), what are the thoughts on the Nikkor 105 f/2.8D Micro vs the new model with VR?  I'm almost set on getting the older D because it is cheaper, and from what I've read, it is actually sharper, handles CA better, and is more consistent in performance from f2.8 down to about f/16 than the newer version.  The newer version has the internal focus and VR, but is this really going to make much difference?  Can you really take 'good' sharp macros handheld anyway?

BTW Buckster, your post of the dragonfly head has me seriously considering picking up a set of extension tubes now even though I was going to get a macro lens anyway.  I've read that the extension tubes will allow greater than 1:1 on a macro lens, but I really didnt expect THAT kind of result.  What is the working distance for that kind of magnification?


----------



## Buckster (Dec 29, 2010)

mjhoward said:


> BTW Buckster, your post of the dragonfly head has me seriously considering picking up a set of extension tubes now even though I was going to get a macro lens anyway. I've read that the extension tubes will allow greater than 1:1 on a macro lens, but I really didnt expect THAT kind of result. What is the working distance for that kind of magnification?


For background, that was shot at f/22 with all 3 Kenko tubes on a Sigma 180mm Macro using a Canon 40D (crop sensor) and my DIY Macro Flash Bracket holding two 580EXII speedlights.

As I recall, I'd worked into within about 6" of the beast when I got that shot.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Dec 29, 2010)

Here are some shots I took with a Canon 500d closeup lens. (You attach it on to the end of your lens, I think its like 75 bucks)

Works really well with my 55-200mm lens and makes the dof real shallow which is cool. 

Canon 500d closeup lens - a set on Flickr


----------



## arcooke (Dec 29, 2010)

Those look really nice darkhunter, thanks.

Now I don't know what to do, haha.  I'd imagine extension tubes would be more versatile since you don't have to worry about matching them up with the filter size that the lens uses, or buying step up rings


----------



## arcooke (Dec 29, 2010)

OK I bought these:
Zeikos AF Macro Extension Tube Set - 12mm, 20mm, and ZE-CVAFN

Instead of 13mm,21mm, and 31mm,  they are 12mm, 20mm, and 36mm.  Same length as the Kenkos that everyone raves about.  Really don't know if it makes that much of a difference though.  Only $75 bucks.. anxious to try them out.


----------



## donalson (Dec 29, 2010)

Buckster said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > BTW Buckster, your post of the dragonfly head has me seriously considering picking up a set of extension tubes now even though I was going to get a macro lens anyway. I've read that the extension tubes will allow greater than 1:1 on a macro lens, but I really didnt expect THAT kind of result. What is the working distance for that kind of magnification?
> ...



any chance you can share more info/have pics of that DIY macro flash bracket setup?
thanks
mark


----------



## Buckster (Dec 29, 2010)

donalson said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...


Here you go: Buck's DIY MFB


----------



## lyonsroar (Dec 29, 2010)

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 (Dec 29, 2010)

Buckster said:


> Here you go: Buck's DIY MFB



Very nice :thumbup:


----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 30, 2010)

Minolta 55/1.7 & Panasonic G1


1. one tube (Shortest)








2. Two tubes







3. Three tubes


----------



## Derrel (Dec 30, 2010)

EXCELLENT demo, Ron!


----------



## arcooke (Dec 30, 2010)

Awesome!  Thanks ron


----------



## arcooke (Jan 4, 2011)

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 (Jan 4, 2011)

Welcome to macro.


----------



## LittleMike (Jan 4, 2011)

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 (Jan 5, 2011)

> 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 (Jan 5, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> > I understand that the build quality and strength of the more expensive models may be better, but would it affect image quality?
> 
> 
> NO!
> ...



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 (Jan 5, 2011)

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.


----------

