extension tubes with wide, ultra-wide and fisheye lenses

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jbq, Mar 13, 2006.

  1. jbq

    jbq

    I've been wondering about the possibility of shooting ultra-wide macro
    pictures by using extension tubes on wide angle lenses, especially on
    a 15mm fisheye. I haven't been able to find much relevant information
    about such combinations.

    All I've found is that a 12mm extension on an EF 15mm fish-eye was
    going to give me 2 to 5mm of working distance, with magnifications
    around 0.9x, and similar information for other lenses like my 24/2.8.

    Does anyone have experience using extension tubes on a 15mm fish-eye?
    Any comments about image quality (I'd be willing to stop down by 3 to
    4 stops)? How about getting light on the subject? Does anyone have
    sample pictures?

    Thanks!
     
  2. Look for the Canon Lens Chart .pdf file on the Canon website, all the info you're looking for is right there.
     
  3. bookmark, I'm quite curious too
     
  4. Wouldn't super wide angle macro be great?

    I 'm shooting with Canon FD lenses, manual focus lenses from the eighties.

    I have a 15mm fish - eye and a 14 mm lens.

    I have to disappoint you: When I put a 12mm extension tube to them, I get no image at all.

    I think it's because the retrofocus design is so thick, that in order to get an image, yo have to be inside the front glass, even with only 12mm's worth of extension.

    I also have a Nikonos underwater camera with a 15mm lens. When I add the shortest possible extension tube (I think about 8 mm), I get the same: no image at any distance. This lens is also a retrofocus.

    It might be interesting to check out from what focal length one gets an image: I have a 20mm and a 24 mm, too. I'll try it out.

    It might be interesting to know that the Vivitar Series 1 28 - 105 F2.8 , at the 28mm setting, close focuses to a magnification of half life size. You get very close to the front glass, then, though.

    Bye,

    Dirk.
     
  5. One more thing:
    I have to add this:


    My 15mm fish - eye, at F 16 and minimum distance, close focuses almost up to the front glass. So I guess that's why an extension tube doesn't work: You'd get inside the glass. By the way: At F16, minimum distance, the landscape at infinity is still very recognizable, which makes for awesome close - ups.

    dirk.
     
  6. I don't think it will work either. I have a 25mm ext tube and it will not work on anything wider than a 50mm. So if the square rule applies, a 12 mm ext tube should work up to 24-25mm.
     
  7. While you may not be able to use an extension tube with the Canon fisheye, I've used a
    12mm with a 17-40 4L and a Zenitar fisheye and it works fine. The effect isn't all that
    interesting, though. Since you can't get much depth of field it's not like a pinhole photograph
    or anything.
     
  8. The Zenitar 16mm fish eye will yield a 1 CM or so working distant. Center sharpness are also good. Here is a picture at f8, focus set near infinity mark.
    00FdRg-28792184.jpg
     
  9. Is the picture with the piggies on the dime taken with an extension tube? What mm? Thanks.
     
  10. jbq

    jbq

    All right, so here's the info I had been gathering from the Canon web site, and from Joe Hewes' table as published on Bob Atkins' page here at photo.net. Neither answers any of the questions I had, and both contradict some of the answers I've been getting here:

    Both mention that the EF 15mm fisheye can be used with a 12mm tube, for magnifications between 0.8 and 0.94 (compared to 0.14 for the "naked" lens, data from Canon) (with extension the working distances are 2 to 5mm, data from Joe Hewes).

    Both mention that the EF 24/2.8 can be used with both a 12 and a 25mm tube, with magnifications between 0.5 and 0.64, and between 1.11 and 1.22. The "naked" magnification is 0.16 (source: Canon) and the working distances as 24-39mm and 12-15mm (source: Joe Hewes).

    Dirk: the focusing distance doesn't change with the aperture (ignoring the near-negligible effects of focus shift due to spherical aberrations), unless the laws of optics have changed since I was in college.

    So, anyone with an EF 15mm and a 12mm tube willing to mount them and try bring an object within a fraction of an inch of the front element?
     
  11. I have just carried out a very crude test on my 10-22 lens by holding it away from the camera. By holding it approx 5mm from off the bayonet I was able to focus right up to the filter. I don't know if there is an extension tube this short but it would seem that with the Canon lens at least you could get a super wide macro.
     
  12. jbq

    jbq

    BTW, Tommy, that's the kind of look I have in mind.
     
  13. Well, I tried to take a photo with 5mm ring (actually a piece of crudly cut plastic tube) and the results were somewhat dissapointing. I used my 20D and the 10-22 lens set to 10mm, manual focus closest setting and f3.5. I took one shot with the lens on the camera and the second with the lens about 5mm off in front. The silly blob (small Russian doll) in the centre of the screen was stuck to the filter with blu tack! Because I could not control the iris I shot both images at f3.5. My lighting was far from ideal because I chose flash (I don't have a studio) so the object stuck on the filter was therefore in shadow. Despite all my excuses I think I have shown that a short extension tube (probably 4mm) would give a wide angle macro for the 10-22. Given AF and iris control and some better lighting I think there's a chance of a half decent arrangement.
    00FdkU-28796784.jpg
     
  14. I have a 7mm extention tube which is fine for macro shots with fisheye lenses. Basically, as the focal length decreases, the extention needed also decreases. It can be done yourself in a workshop, but if you require electronic communication between lens and camera then you are limited to what is available commercially. If you can go the manual lens route, then you may be able to shorten some extention tubes yourself, to make say 5mm or 3mm (this might be useful on an 8mm circular fisheye for macro).
     
  15. Some info on the piggie picture. A Kenko 12mm EOS tube was used on a EOS 5D. The peggies are on top of a US quarter (not dime).

    Note: Don't use the Zenitar 16mm at infinity without the tube on a 5D. The filter on the back will not clear the 5D mirror.
     
  16. jbq

    jbq

    Out of the blue I was given an opportunity to test a zenitar 16mm fisheye with a 12mm extension on a 20D. The focal point was outside of the glass, and the angle of view was pleasantly wide, offering the kind of perspective I'm interested in. On the 5D it's probably what I'm after.

    Thanks to everyone for their help, and thanks to the friend who offered me an apportunity to play with his equipment. Tommy, thanks for the information about the Zenitar and the 5D, I wouldn't want to have discovered that the hard way.
     
  17. I have a Nikon-mount Zenitar 16mm fisheye with an EOS adaptor. Clears the mirror, and focuses a hair past infinity. Lots of Canon-mount users report no problems with the mirror with the filter in place.

    Tommy, is it your lens and camera that had the problem?
     
  18. sorry, should have specified that's on a 5D.
     
  19. "I have a Nikon-mount Zenitar 16mm fisheye with an EOS adaptor. Clears the mirror..."
    Makes sense - after all, the lens was designed for "FF" film cameras wasn't it?
     
  20. Yes, however there are a few third party FF-designed lenses that interfere with 5D and 1DsII mirrors, for instance Leica wide angles and some Zuikos. The mirror size does vary a bit, I guess to match different coverage viewfinders.

    I've found one other reference to a Zenitar hitting the 5D mirror, but most people polled in another forum had no trouble. So I'd like to find out who has firsthand experience with it, and see if there's a difference in the lens or mirror, or if it's just internet hearsay.
     
  21. Seems that if the rumours are indeed true then perhaps there is a slight variation in mirror or lens (but as these are built from standard parts then this seems odd). Perhaps there's an older and newer version of the lens with such a variation?
     

Share This Page