# Extension tubes or Raynox DCR 150/250 for macro?



## kujen92 (Jul 9, 2010)

I've always been interested in macro but I cannot afford a dedicated macro lens. I would like to give macro capabilities to either my 50mm 1.8 or 70-300mm IS (Canon). 

For around $50 I could get either plastic auto extension tubes or a Raynox 150 or 250 diopter. From what I've read, the Raynox sounds like it has pretty good optical quality. Also it would be a lot more convenient than using extension tubes as I wouldn't have to change lenses. But most examples are of people using it on a superzoom, while I have a crop sensor DSLR. It sounds like the depth of field would be much thinner on my crop camera, would this be true of extension tubes as well? Convenience and a not-too-thin depth of field are both important considerations to me.

I was also considering a teleconverter to give more reach to my long lens. How well does a teleconverter work for macro photos? Is there a decent brand that is not too expensive?

Also I don't have an off-camera flash, so it is important that whatever I get will work well in natural light. So either extension tubes, Raynox diopter, or teleconverter...what do you think?




EDIT: These are the extension tubes I'm looking at MCAETEOSP Pro Optic Budget Auto Extention Tube Set for Canon EOS SLR Cameras


----------



## NateS (Jul 10, 2010)

kujen92 said:


> I've always been interested in macro but I cannot afford a dedicated macro lens. I would like to give macro capabilities to either my 50mm 1.8 or 70-300mm IS (Canon).
> 
> For around $50 I could get either plastic auto extension tubes or a Raynox 150 or 250 diopter. From what I've read, the Raynox sounds like it has pretty good optical quality. Also it would be a lot more convenient than using extension tubes as I wouldn't have to change lenses. But most examples are of people using it on a superzoom, while I have a crop sensor DSLR. It sounds like the depth of field would be much thinner on my crop camera, would this be true of extension tubes as well? Convenience and a not-too-thin depth of field are both important considerations to me.
> 
> ...



What lens are you using it on?  I would recommend tubes as it is the only way to prevent losing any optical quality.  I have both a TC and tubes and I use the tubes all of the time now with my 180mm.  I can easily handhold 68mm tubes at near 2:1 so you should have no problem there.  Are the tubes ones that retain exposure etc..(i.e. with electrical contacts).  I wouldn't bother with tubes that don't have the electrical bits.

Also check into the Canon 250d and 500d close up lenses/filters.  They are just like the Raynox but in my opinion (from samples I've seen of both) higher quality.  If I was buying one I'd go with the 500d for my 180mm or the 250d for my shorter lenses....but I'd probably rather have tubes over that anyway.


----------



## kujen92 (Jul 10, 2010)

The extension tubes have electrical contacts, just that the set is made of plastic instead of metal. I looked at those real cheap ones but ruled them out when I realized I'd lose the ability to control the aperture. 

I would love to buy the Canon 250d/500d or even a real macro lens, but they're all a bit beyond what I want to pay right now. I'm just looking for cheaper options that will still provide some decent quality. A teleconverter sounds like it would be nice for both distant subjects  and macro too (is it?), but I haven't found a decent one around the same price  point.  As mentioned I would like to use either the Canon 50mm 1.8 or 70-300mm IS (or both!).

I want to do macro mainly outside shooting bugs and such. My main subjects are nature and wildlife, so I want something for that. What was appealing to me about the Raynox was the ability to put it on or remove it quickly without taking off my lens. I'm just concerned about shallow depth of field and the short focusing distance. So I'm still torn between all these options.


----------



## jac (Apr 17, 2011)

Macro lenses are great but not necessary. An interesting link for starting cheap. Inexpensive Macro Photography.


----------

