# Extension tubes or save for lens



## JDawggie (Dec 30, 2011)

Hi everyone,
I recently purchased the Nikon 40mm "Micro" to experiment with some close-up / semi macro shots.  After doing some further reading and learning, the 40MM does have some challenges to really shoot Macro 1:1 (you basically have to be right on top of the subject).  So, my question is (being that I do not want to go spend crazy as I am still in the entry-level of macro) should I purchase a set of extension tubes to get further distance?  Or would it be better to say upgrade to the DX-85mm Nikon lens.

Thanks all,
Jared


----------



## Judobreaker (Dec 30, 2011)

It depends a bit on what you are shooting and how much you are willing to spend.
Tubes aren't at all that expensive so they might be good to start with, I'm not sure how much your working distance will increase though.
The downside of using tubes is losing light.

If you're going to buy a new lens you're going to have to take your subjects into account.
You wouldn't want to spend $400-500 on a lens only to find out insects are still easily spooked when working at 1:1 with a 85mm lens.
If you're going to shoot insects you might want to try and get a 100mm focal length at least.
I've done a quick search and there's a couple of ~100mm macro lenses that are roughly in the same price range as the DX-85mm Nikon lens.
I'm not familiar with all these lenses but macro lenses are usually of pretty good quality.

I have the 105mm Nikon macro lens myself and I find it really fun to shoot with, although I think it really is the minimum to get because I feel like I'm on top of the insects already. 
It's a lot more expensive than the DX-85 Nikon lens though so you could look at some other brands.


----------



## orionmystery (Dec 30, 2011)

The minimum working distance (at 1:1) is about 2" from front of lens to subject right? I think that's good enough.

Tubes won't give you extra working distance. It only allows you to get even closer (to the subject i.e below 2") and thus allows you to achieve higher magnification.

You might as well add in a teleconverter. However, do check if your lens allow a teleconverter to be added. I found out from a friend that the Nikon 60mm macro won't allow you to use a teleconverter. It won't fit in mechanically.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 30, 2011)

You can't use a teleconverter with the 40mm 2.8G so go ahead and save up for the Nikon 105 or Sigma 105 or Tamron 90.


----------



## Judobreaker (Dec 31, 2011)

orionmystery said:


> The minimum working distance (at 1:1) is about 2" from front of lens to subject right? I think that's good enough.
> 
> Tubes won't give you extra working distance. It only allows you to get even closer (to the subject i.e below 2") and thus allows you to achieve higher magnification.
> 
> You might as well add in a teleconverter. However, do check if your lens allow a teleconverter to be added. I found out from a friend that the Nikon 60mm macro won't allow you to use a teleconverter. It won't fit in mechanically.




Tubes actually do give you more working distance. ^^
My first reaction was the same as yours but after reading up a bit on the internet I saw it does.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2011)

Judobreaker said:


> orionmystery said:
> 
> 
> > The minimum working distance (at 1:1) is about 2" from front of lens to subject right? I think that's good enough.
> ...


Have you ever used them?  When I put my tubes on any lens I have, I have to get that much closer to the subject to get it in focus.  It _*decreases*_ working distance to allow us to get closer to the subject in order to get more magnification.


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2011)

Extension tubes certainly do not give more working distance, they work specifically by reducing the minimum focusing distance in order to let you focus closer to gain a more magnified image, with the added effect of stripping your infinity focus as well; so that you can only focus a short distance away from the lens (how far depends upon the focal length and the amount of extension tubes you add).

With a 40mm macro lens you'll already be right on top of your subject at 1:1 and I doubt that you'd get any meaningful increase in magnification by using tubes, since you'd end up with your lens pretty much touching the subject - making shooting very hard and lighting exceptionally hard.

Teleconverters would be the only way to boost magnification with increased working distance, but as said above they typically will not physically fit shorter lenses - they are aimed at boosting the focal lengths of longer lenses. You might (and I stress might) get some luck combining a teleconverter with an extension tube to allow you to fit them to the lens, but chances are you're going to invest a lot in that which would be better served being put toward a longer focal length macro lens (with a mind to boosting its magnification via extension tubes/teleconverters/close up lens attachments).


----------



## JDawggie (Dec 31, 2011)

Most of the things I would due interest in shooting would be "still"...I was hoping that the tubes would give me more distance, but it seems that is not the case.  The 105mm is a bit more than I am looking to spend -- I may look further at the 85mm for DX -- Ah shoot, I just want everything!


----------



## manaheim (Dec 31, 2011)

I've used both solutions quite a bit, and I can say without hesitation that there is no substitute for a "real" lens... but there is a lot of extra money associated with getting the right tool for the job.  Like at least several hundred dollars and up to a grand.  

If you plan to be serious about macro, you want the better tools, but as with anything in photography you have to decide what your budget is and what the right return on investment is for your dollars.


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2011)

I've a Sigma 70mm macro and must say that as a light, generalist macro lens it works very well; enough working distance that you're not pressed right up to your subject and the working distance is good for indoors where you can't always backup further. The 85mm would likely give you a very similar range of performances so it should suit your needs indeed.


----------



## Judobreaker (Dec 31, 2011)

Buckster said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> > orionmystery said:
> ...




Really?
I admit I have never used them and I did actually think they'd decrease working distance...
I might've misread the information I found on the internet yesterday.

However, there is something you have to keep in mind!
We're not talking about closest focus here, he said he found the working distance at 1:1 too close.
With an added extension tube the closest focus distance might decrease, but at that point the magnification is increased.
What if you still wanted to shoot at 1:1, would your working distance be higher or lower?
Just an interesting question... ^^


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2011)

Judobreaker said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Judobreaker said:
> ...


Yeah, that's true.  In that case, it would increase working distance.  The question is, by how much?

I decided to find out.  I tested it with my 180mm macro lens and a full set of Kenko tubes just now.  Here's what happened:

I started with the subject at 1:1, which put it 9 & 5/32" from the end of the lens without the tubes.  When I put the full set of tubes on, in order to get the exact same composition, I was at a working distance of 10 & 9/32", so *1 & 1/8" further away using a full set of tubes*.

_(Measurements were taken with a Leica Disto D8 laser)_


----------



## Judobreaker (Jan 1, 2012)

Well that's emm... Useful. 
I guess we should drop the extension tubes option. xD


----------

