Nikon 300mm f/4 for close-up photography

<p>Hi,<br>

Can anyone please tell me which combo will give me better results for close-up photography (not exactly macro):<br>

-- Nikon 300mm f/4 and Canon 500D close-up lens (diopter) or<br>

-- Nikon 300mm f/4 and 25 mm extension tube.<br>

What are your experiences ? How close can you go with either of the two combos ?<br>

Thanks in advance for your answers.<br>

Regards, Miha.</p><div></div>

<p>My experience with non-macro telephotos is that a high quality closeup diopter works just as well as an extension tube - in some cases, better, since there's no loss of effective maximum aperture with the diopter. It's also a good way to preserve autofocus for closeups, which can help with moving subjects.</p>

<p>I've used extension tubes but prefer them with f/2.8 or faster lenses. Too much light loss otherwise to be as useful with slower lenses. For example, I rarely use my M2 extension tube as intended, with the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor, but do use it quite a bit with my 180/2.8 and 105/2.5 Nikkors.</p>

<p>Although I didn't do any serious test about this, my experience suggests that extension tubes work better with lenses that 'pop' when focused at short distances while the diopters are best suited for lenses that you better like close to infinity. Completely subjective, I use a 4T on AIS 50 f1.4, AIS 200 f4 and 75-150 E and prefer extension tubes on AIS 50 1.8 short barrel and AF 85 1.8.</p>

<p>It also depends on how much magnification you expect to achieve. With a 300 mm, I'd expect the diopter to put you much closer to 1:1 than the tube.</p>

<p>For that type of photo the 300mm f/4 is probably all you need on a DX camera. It focuses very close. Adding an extension tube to get closer will be no problem. The Kenko ones seem cheaply made, but preserve autofocus with AFS lenses, and given there is no glass the build quality isn't much of a concern to me. I haven't tried the 500D, so i can't compare the two methods. I use my 300mm as a close up lens all the time however.</p>

<p>I first thought of using the 300mm F/4 AFS when it replaced my 25-year-old 300mm Nikon AI lens. I noticed that the lens focused to around four feet and thought it might make a good choice for flower closeups and butterfly photos. I bought the AFS lens seven years ago and mainly use the lens for sports and macro. It's incredibly sharp and I've never been disappointed.</p><div></div>

<p>Miha, from your post it is not clear whether you are talking about the 300/4 AF-S (closest focus distance 5 ft) or the older 300/4 AF IF-ED (closest focus distance 9 ft). <br>

For the former, I recommend the extension tube - it gets you to about 4 ft. The 500D gets you to about 2 ft - but the range (infinity to closest focus on the lens) is small - less than 1 ft. What I am trying to say is that the 500D might provide too much magnification. I use it on a 80-400 on occasion, the zoom greatly adds to the versatility. <br>

For the latter, I'm torn. The extension tube would get you to somewhere near where the AF-S is without any attachment - certainly an improvement but might not be enough. The diopter of course works the same way on both lenses.</p>

<p>Miha,<br>

I use the 300mm f/4 AF-S for a lot of this stuff. I use it with a TC at times, and I use it with tubes. Kenko tubes allowes for AF. I did buy a Canon 500D but sold it rather fast. It added too much weight to the front of the camera of the camera. It simply became too front heavy.<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>Miha. If you have a D200 (I see some of your pictures were done with a D200) the find a Kiron 80-200 f4 ai macro zoom. It's manual focus but is tack sharp and you can find them on the auction for almost mothing.</p>

<p>I prefer to use my Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS lens with either Nikon ext tubes when manual focusing is preferred, or non nikon ext tubes that allow for AF for things like butterflies when you want to remain in AF. I use a 39mm tube when doing this. Joe Smith</p>