70-200 4.0 IS macro extender or pure macro lens?

<p>Hello guys.<br /><br /><br />What do you recommend, a pure macro lens or the extender for the 70-200? </p>

<p>I'm guessing you haven't used a dedicated macro like the Canon 100 2.8 IS macro or the 180.. or the Zeiss 100 f2.... they are the top 3 macro lenses in my opinion.<br>

Extension tubes for the 70-200 will be nice and easy on the budget and give very nice results.... <br>

So... what are your expectations and/or budget?<br>

I'd say get extension tubes and use them with the lenses you have... if you want more out of macro you will then know what to do.</p>

<p>Haven't macroed a lot actually, but I think close ups looks really interesting! <br /><br />If 70-200 extender gives nice result I will definitely consider it! </p>

<p>Perhaps you mean "extension tubes" (one example at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html">link</a>)? <em>Extender</em> is more often used to describe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tele_extender">teleconverters</a>.<br>

An extender/teleconverter may give you a little more "close focus", but true macro means going to 1:1 (size of item in real world to image on the sensor plane) or at least 1:2.</p>

<p>A true macro lens designed from the get-go for that purpose is really preferable, but extension tubes, bellows, and even "plus" lenses/filters screwed into the front of the lens can produce surprisingly good results if you are lucky and use a tripod, stop-down the aperture, etc.<br>

If money is no problem, get a real macro and all the other specialized tools. Otherwise, you might try some of the cheaper alternatives to see how much macro you really want to do. Many people end up buying a lot of lenses and then never using them much when they buy before they know what they really need or want.</p>

<p>Depends on how dedicated you are to macro work. Extenders work fine for me, I've owned various macro lenses but always end up selling them for lack of use and going back to tubes.<br>

If you're serious about it though you're going to want a good macro lens. Richard mentions three excellent choices, don't rule out the offerings by Sigma and Tamron. Less money but at least as good as the offerings from Canon.</p>

<p>I am sorry, I meant extension tubes. Hmm, I am still really unsure to be honest, hehe. I think I will not do a lot of macro, to be honest. </p>

<p>If you're not going to do a lot of macro work, don't buy a dedicated macro lens. Excellent macro work is time consuming, very precise, and generally not something which is fast paced, and there is often a learning curve. If you just want an occasional close shot, go with extension tubes.</p>

Okey, any special tubes you recommend?

<p>Kenko tubes. well-built, have electrical connections, and can be used in any combination, giving you from 12 to 68mm extension.<br>

<br />Another factor to consider is that the amount of magnification you will get depends on the length of the extension compared to the focal length of the lens. At 200mm, you will not be able to get close to 1:1 magnification with 68mm of extension. Still, you can get things like full-body shots of dragonflies.</p>

<p>There are only about a dozen different chinese manufacturers, but I'd recommend (for simplicity!) getting a set of tubes which has pass thru contacts. That will allow you to stop down the EF lenses in camera (instead of using the DOF button/remove trick which is doable, but a PITA), as well as allow AF (though that added 'functionality' is only marginally useful). </p>

<p>I would expect to pay ~$60-80 or so for a set of 3 w/ contacts. About $6-8 for a set w/o.</p>

<p>Have fun with some light macro!</p>

<p>pro:<br>

Extension tubes are cheaper than a macro lens.<br>

There is no glass in the extension so the IQ is not compromised.<br>

Light and easy to carry attachment for close-ups.</p>

<p>con:<br>

With extension tubes attached to the lens, infinity focus is lost.<br>

Magnification only approaches 1:1 as the extension approaches the focal length. In the case of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, about .32 magnification using the EF25 can be acheived at 200mm. </p>

<p>IMHO, Macro means 1:1 or greater.<br>

I've tried just about every conceivable configuration and when I want macro 1:1 or close to that, a macro lens does the best job for me. Yet, for close-ups I do often use extension tubes on my telephoto lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As you will see (my link was to an offer of the electronic Kenko tubes) they are still not cheap, although less than a true macro.</p>

<p>An alternative with Canon is to get something like a Nikon or M42 plain bellows and a nice quality 50mm f/1.8 lens in the same mount and then adapt the lens and bellows to the EOS body with a ~$15 adapter. You measure the light with the lens stopped down and focus manually, but that's usually what you need to do in macro anyway, given the very shallow depth-of-field at these working distances. The total price on eBay would be quite modest, almost certainly less than the AF extension tubes.</p>

<p>Or the bellows can be Canon EOS and the adapter at the lens end - $28 for the bellows<br>

inexpensive 50mm M42 lens - $10-20<br>

adapter $7-15</p>

<p>When getting into macro it is best to decide what your main subjects will be. That will determine what magnification you will want and what working distance you want. Magnification, working distance and AF are the key determinants of what equipement will work best.<br>

Flowers and other static objects are easy to do as the magnification required to do a whole flower is typcially less than1:1 or even 1:2 and they don't move giving you flexibilty with your working distance. Tubes can be used for these with good results.<br>

For moving insects you will want a dedicated macro with AF both for magnification and for focus tracking. The Canon EF 100 f2.8 macro witha 1.6 crop body and some additional cropping can work well for this. Tubes don't work well for this because the range of focus becomes very limited such that you will often find yourself too far or too close to a moving object for effective focus.<br>

A dedicated macro is a lot more convenient for most macro work, and if you find you don't use it much you can probably get 80 per cent or more of its value back on resale.<br>

A good quality close up lens is possibly a better option for working with a zoom, than tubes. The magnification changes as you zoom in and out with tubes (as the magnification is a function of the length of the tube, which is fixed, and the focal length which is changing as you zoom). So that as you zoom you are changing both the composition and the magnification.<br>

Hence with a zoom and tubes, the easiest way to compose is not to zoom but rather decide on the magnification you want, set the zoom accordingly and move backwards or forwards until you achieve the composition that you want. Alternatively crop in post.</p>

<p>I would like to thank everyone for their answers, I will use some time to think about this :-) </p>

<p>If you want to shoot macro a 1:1 macro lens is always better than an extension tube. Get at least a 100mm or 105mm, or a 150 or 180 if you can afford it. A poor man's macro, the Sigma 105 is still superb quality.</p>

<p>You can also use Close Up filters instead of the Extenders. I use them with my 70-200 when I don't want to carry allot of gear they work great if you can keep the camera and lens steady.</p>

<p>I have a AF 36m extension tube that I picked up on ebay that I use on 70-200 mm f4 and I love the results. You will only have a short range of depth of field to work with, but that is not a problem for me. The autofocus works great, but I usually use manual on a tripod. <br>

Tom</p>

<p>Good extension tubes are a good investment. If you use them on your 70-200 then develop a love for macro photography, you can invest in a macro lens. Once you've gotten the hang of the macro lens alone, you can add the extension tubes for even greater magnification. If you decide macro isn't for you after buying the tubes, you're not out as much money as if you had bought a dedicated macro lens (although they can be shot at infinity, as well, and are extremely sharp lenses).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no glass in the extension so the IQ is not compromised.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the lens is operated outside the range it was designed for, IQ does suffer (or else you would just use longer extension tubes). Still it may be high enough to be reasonable.</p>

<p>I've used tubes for many years in intensive field work. The IQ does not suffer. IQ from a 400 5.6 with stacked 25 and 11's is just as spectacular as it is with no tubes.</p>

Look for a Canon 600D two element diopter lens that will fit like a filter on the front of your lens. Unless you are doing

serious macro work it works surprisingly well and you retain all of the lens' full functionality.

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Have any direct link to that?</p>

<p>Will these work good?:</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-Kenko-12mm-20mm-36mm-Auto-Extension-Tube-Set-DG-for-Canon-EF-EF-S-/320996356090?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item4abcdfaffa</p>

I had the name of Canon's two element close up lens wrong. It is called the 500D. There is also one of less magnification

called the 250D.

 

I have extension tubes, macro bellow units and the 500d. It is far faster and easier to use the 500D unless I am doing

very critical macro work like copying details of small flattish objects and can control lighting and positioning of subject. For

that kind of work I will switch to a dedicated macro lens or use a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 75mm f/4 that is designed for

1:1 work with a focusing bellows unit.

 

Bob Atkins writes about the Canon Closeup lenses here:http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm

Thanks mate! So...tube or 500d lens?