Is a macro lens better than extension tubes
- Thread starter wornish
- Start date
I was very easy (and economical) I got the MelKe - Macro Extension Tube set which consists of 36mm,20mm and 12mm off ebay.
They have electrical connections so you can still use auto focus and adjust aperture on G lenses. Kenko do them as well.
Make sure you get the right ones for Nikon F mount.
You do have to get very close to the subject when using the bigger tubes - about 5cm (2") so lighting starts to become a challenge.
Obviously that could be too close if you want to take pictures of insects or butterflies. It seems thats where a macro lens starts to be an advantage.
The depth of field is very thin but thats the same I think even with a macro lens.
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The answer is "It all depends". A lot depends on what macro lens you're talking about and what lens you're attaching the tubes to. Will it be more expensive? Almost always. But "Better" is a horrible word when comparing things like this.
As for your specific question... You have a 50mm f/1.8g, which has a 1.48ft. minimum focus distance. Extension tubes effectively increase your magnification by reducing your minimum focal length. The 105mm has a 1ft minimum focus distance, so technically, you can get extension tubes to get you closer, but the magnification of the 105mm may make it appear larger/closer. The real question is, "How close do you want to get?"
My personal opinion is that a macro lens will almost always be better suited for macro photography, but at a cost. If you're serious about getting up close, get a lens. Otherwise, tubes work great as long as the lens you attach them to is of good quality.
There are lots of tutorials out there explaining the math behind how tubes work. As long as they allow your camera to communicate with your lens properly (and don't allow light leaks when stacked) they are a great solution in that they don't introduce anything between the optics and the sensor except space.
As for your specific question... You have a 50mm f/1.8g, which has a 1.48ft. minimum focus distance. Extension tubes effectively increase your magnification by reducing your minimum focal length. The 105mm has a 1ft minimum focus distance, so technically, you can get extension tubes to get you closer, but the magnification of the 105mm may make it appear larger/closer. The real question is, "How close do you want to get?"
My personal opinion is that a macro lens will almost always be better suited for macro photography, but at a cost. If you're serious about getting up close, get a lens. Otherwise, tubes work great as long as the lens you attach them to is of good quality.
There are lots of tutorials out there explaining the math behind how tubes work. As long as they allow your camera to communicate with your lens properly (and don't allow light leaks when stacked) they are a great solution in that they don't introduce anything between the optics and the sensor except space.
hard to follow BDHs post but ill share my experience.
i used a 50mm 1.8d with tubes which was ok but as already mentioned you have to get really close and lighting is a problem
i also used the 50mm and then later on a 40mm 2.8 micro(macro) lens with an opteka close up filter which was better than the tubes and i didnt notice any reduction in image quality.
The flatter focal plane with the macro lens and more usable working depth of field was definately an improvement over the 50mm. So ive recently bought a 105mm macro instead which is really good as i dont have to get so close any more. The disadvantage of the 105mm is its a little harder to hold still for handheld macro.
Hope that helps.
i used a 50mm 1.8d with tubes which was ok but as already mentioned you have to get really close and lighting is a problem
i also used the 50mm and then later on a 40mm 2.8 micro(macro) lens with an opteka close up filter which was better than the tubes and i didnt notice any reduction in image quality.
The flatter focal plane with the macro lens and more usable working depth of field was definately an improvement over the 50mm. So ive recently bought a 105mm macro instead which is really good as i dont have to get so close any more. The disadvantage of the 105mm is its a little harder to hold still for handheld macro.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
Vello also makes an extension tube set that gets high ratings although it is a little more expensive than the Meike set; however, it's not nearly as expensive as the Kenko set.
Vello Auto Extension Tube Set for Nikon EXT-ND B&H Photo Video
Vello also makes an extension tube set that gets high ratings although it is a little more expensive than the Meike set; however, it's not nearly as expensive as the Kenko set.
Vello Auto Extension Tube Set for Nikon EXT-ND B&H Photo Video
They look good! Thank you!
One thing you must not forget is that extension tubes will rob you of a few f-stops. The longer the extension tube, the more light you will loose. Macro lenses are built specially to have a flat field and have virtually no distortion. I think that a macro lens is much better than extension tubes, but when the macro lens is not enough, I sometimes use extension tubes with the macro lens.
OP... Short answer yes.
However with that lens you'll soon figure out the learning curve and how different it is from stacking a normal lens. What you would gain though would probably would make the difference as working with a 1.1 vs per say 1.5 magnification ratio when you are in PP. So once you start cropping is where you see how the ratio comes into play. I can zoom in all day long with a 1.1 where as I know I will hit limitations, as I've seen it personally with lenses that have less than the 1.1.
I maybe not be wording everything properly, but in the end the 105mm would be a step in the right direction. You will not be disappointed in it.
However with that lens you'll soon figure out the learning curve and how different it is from stacking a normal lens. What you would gain though would probably would make the difference as working with a 1.1 vs per say 1.5 magnification ratio when you are in PP. So once you start cropping is where you see how the ratio comes into play. I can zoom in all day long with a 1.1 where as I know I will hit limitations, as I've seen it personally with lenses that have less than the 1.1.
I maybe not be wording everything properly, but in the end the 105mm would be a step in the right direction. You will not be disappointed in it.
Dave - I've played with extension tubes and with a Nikkor 135mm f2.8 Ai lens before. They are ok but they are a little inconvinient to use especially if you don't have a focusing rail. You'll need to adjust the entire tripod to get the right focus. You know what I mean if you've been using extension tubes. The dedicated macro lens eliminates that and makes the entire process and experience much more enjoyable. That's just my take on it.
iamntxhunter
Senior Member
To the OP, in general yes they are. Are there options for a way to work around? Yes as mentiod in this thread.
In photography everything has a trade off unfortunately.
In photography everything has a trade off unfortunately.
Regarding loss of light at large magnification: It is not just extension tubes, it is any lens, specifically including macro lenses. Macro lenses suffer the same light loss doing extreme magnification. Macro lenses just are recalibrated to indicate the correct lossy value (when focused close).
Closeup filters (magnifying glass in front of lens) is the only solution without light loss, but these won't reach 1:1, and are sort of an optical kludge (better ones can work though).
If you have a f/2.8 macro lens, set it to f/2.8 (at some larger distance). Then focus it as close as possible, to 1:1 magnification. It now indicates more like f/4.8 to f/f5.6 (ought to be two stops loss at f/5.6, but internal focusing can do tricks). However, this is typically metered through the lens anyway, but if using a hand held meter, you have to know this.
A chart, applicable to physics, not to any specific lens:
0.1 magnification - loss of 1/4 stop. Lots of lenses focus this close. Some calibrate theirself accurately.
0.5 magnification - loss of 1.3 stops
1.0 magnification - loss of 2 stops (this is the 1:1 magnification that macro lenses typically can do).
0.5 magnification - loss of 1.3 stops
1.0 magnification - loss of 2 stops (this is the 1:1 magnification that macro lenses typically can do).
The choice of macro lens or extension tubes is a big choice with very vast differences.
Put a 28 mm tube on a 50 mm lens, and
- It still will not reach 1:1 magnification (1:1 needs extension comparable to the focal length).
- It will only offer ONE magnification - whatever it does is the only choice it offers.
- Ability to focus will be lost. At large magnifications, the focus ring will have extremely small effect (essentially does near nothing, and the closer to 1:1, the less it does.) So we have to focus by moving the camera back and forth, to find the one spot where it can focus.
Switch to a real macro lens, and
- It will easily focus from infinity to 1:1 magnification, no issue at all. Auto focus normally works fine, at any distance.
- It will offer wide range of many magnifications, at any of these distances where it easily focuses.
- Again, it easily focuses at any distance. You only move the camera to change the magnification value, to be a more close up view.
- Plus, it is optically corrected for these close distances.
We are of course now out about $400 to $1000 to buy the macro lens, but it really is like day and night. No longer primitive.
The extension tube can work, but it only does what it does, and only in its way.
Last edited:
In most cases a macro/micro lens will perform better than say a "normal" lens and extension tubes for a few reasons:
1. Flatness of field. Macro/micro lenses are designed to provide better flatness of field than a normal, every day lens.
2. Close focus capability. Macro/micro lenses can be used for general photography as well but are usually optimized for close focus. The 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro has "CRC" which stands for close range compensation. Internal elements shift a little to improve close focus quality
3. Adding extension tubes reduces the amount of light landing on the film/sensor by something called the inverse squared law. Using a combination of extension tubes to achieve a 1:2 will reduce light more than a Macro/Micro lens will for the same magnification.
Of all of the alternatives though, extension tubes are probably the best compromise if you don't have a macro/micro lens. Especially when compared to using a teleconverter or close up lenses.
1. Flatness of field. Macro/micro lenses are designed to provide better flatness of field than a normal, every day lens.
2. Close focus capability. Macro/micro lenses can be used for general photography as well but are usually optimized for close focus. The 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro has "CRC" which stands for close range compensation. Internal elements shift a little to improve close focus quality
3. Adding extension tubes reduces the amount of light landing on the film/sensor by something called the inverse squared law. Using a combination of extension tubes to achieve a 1:2 will reduce light more than a Macro/Micro lens will for the same magnification.
Of all of the alternatives though, extension tubes are probably the best compromise if you don't have a macro/micro lens. Especially when compared to using a teleconverter or close up lenses.
Having used both methods, I really preferred the macro lens! But I use a tripod a lot so a macro lens is a lot easier and seems to give you a better chance of getting a good shot even if your a bit slow like I am at getting set up. I hated the focus rails I bought when using the extension tubes, being both slow and they seemed sloppy to me. Now a better focus rail might have made it a bit better, but I'd still go with a macro lens!
I also like to use my macro lenses as regular primes too, which I think is great also. I like the idea of double duty lenses without having to change stuff to get a completely different type of shot!
I also like to use my macro lenses as regular primes too, which I think is great also. I like the idea of double duty lenses without having to change stuff to get a completely different type of shot!
