To Macro or to Tube (extension tube that is)

[makario]

I have been trying to decide (swaying like a pendulum) between a macro lens (canon 100mm) or a set of extension tubes for awhile now and I am hoping to get some advide from the forum.

I have a 90-300 f4.5-5.6 and 17-85 f4-5.6 canon lens and would like to test the waters with Macro photography, hence leaning towards the 100mm canon lens, as it will also be useful for portrait photography. However I do like landscape photography and would like to take close-up photos of objects hence I was looking at extension tubes. These extension tubes would be useful in the future when I graduate to some serious 'L' glass.

Additionally I think the extension tube allows a larger working macro distance at the loss of a couple of stops

Please help me make an informed decission

Thanks
Mak

[Bindii]

I have the Canon 100mm lens.. and honestly its some of the best money that i ever spent... smashing lens.. so sharp and detail is superb.. I use it for both Macro and Potrait work and it performs well with both...

I would highly recommend it..

[losfp]

Hahaha once you get more seriously into it, you will want BOTH!

The general consensus is that ext tubes work best with primes.. and I honestly wouldn't think you'd get great results with slow consumer zooms. In this case, I reckon go for the dedicated macro lens.

[ATJ]

Mak,

If you are not sure whether you will get into macro photography or not, it is an each way bet. An extension tube (or even a set) is usually cheaper than a new macro lens and so you can get into the realm of macro without much of an outlay. The quality of a tube on a zoom is not perfect, but it is generally no worse than from the lens itself and certainly good enough to see if you like macro.

A macro lens, while more expensive, is a good lens in itself even for non macro work. At 100mm, it would be pretty good for portraits.

My advice is to get the macro lens if you can justify the cost. If not, get yourself an extension tube and "test the waters".

My first dabble into macro was with an extension tube and I got some great shots before graduating to a 60mm macro lens.

[makario]

Thanks for the great advice Bindii, losfp and ATJ.

ATJ as you say, I am testing the waters and would like to be sure before I shell out for a macro lens. Out of curiousity which set of extension tubes did you use? and how many? Thanks

Cheers
Mak

[losfp]

Additionally I think the extension tube allows a larger working macro distance at the loss of a couple of stops

Actually I believe the tubes give you LESS working space. They basically let you get closer than the normal minimum focusing distance for that lens.

Remember that not all lenses will work nicely with extension tubes, or may have less effect than others.

Also, double check that the tubes you get will work with EF-S lenses - I tried googling it this morning and got a couple of vague comments that some tubes may not work well with EF-S lenses.

[ATJ]

Mak,

I have PK13 (for Nikon) which is 27.5mm. I used it mainly on a Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5. I got some great results back in the film days. I have been meaning to scan some of the photographs for my site so I'll do that and post links.

As Des says, an extension tube decreases the working distance (teleconverters increase it).

[ATJ]

Unfortunately, these didn't scan as well as I would have hoped. The slides are very good but the scan does not do them justice at all.

http://andrewtrevor-jones.com/Grasshopp ... ook92.html
http://andrewtrevor-jones.com/S_picta_Glenbrook93.html
http://andrewtrevor-jones.com/D_subrufa ... ook93.html

I'll try to dig out some more that scan a bit better.

[rflower]

I bought the Kenko set of tubes for around 150 from this forum (I bought Nikon, but they do have a Canon mount). I just looked in the bargain section, but cannot see them so cannot give the actual price. Ask Gary; they may still be obtainable through the forum. I have used the tubes with 18-135, 18-200 and 50 1.4 lenses, and never had any issues with any of them.

I have now got my eye on the 90mm Tamron macro from the bargains for around $400.

I would potentially be using them together.

[wazonthehill2]

I have both.
I started with the 17-85 efs lens. A nice lens, and ok, Will do some average close work, and not hat close.
I got extension tubes and found it was ok, but not great, and got peeved when the UV filter was hiting what I was trying to take.
Got jack of it and bought the canon 100mm macro.
Thank God! It is a great lense, absolutely. It is fantastic with macro, and you are further away from the object.
The extension tubes work great with this lense.

And it is a lovely portrait lens.
And it is the lense I have been using to shoot indoor soccer.

Go the 100 macro, brilliant.

Waz