Using Kenko extension tubes EF lens

[nabeeko]

Hello all!

How good is the macro capability of using these tubes vs macro lenses

or the diopter? Can any post a picture of how this performs? Please

advise the lens used on the picture. Thanks.

[michael_peters1]

A macro lens, or a macro lens in combination with tubes, is going to be better than a standard lense with tubes - simply because its optics are designed for macro.

 

Diopters - diopters vary in quality, there are a lot of junk ones that are good enough for most people, and a few good ones. I believe Nikon and Canon both make excellent diopters - I haven't used either. My diopters are junk (but were free) - but are better than nothing when I don't have my macro lens and need to do a macro shot.

 

Tubes are probably generally going to be better than diopters - if you have carried a proper tripod with you. Problem is that tubes put the lens, which has glass and therefore weight, further away from the camera body - thus sometimes moving the center of gravity of the camera and lens off of the tripod mount - which can make camera shake more of an issue. So if you are going into the field and hiking, and therefore carrying a lightweight tripod/head combo - diopters may actually be better. But with a proper macro setup - as in camera shake is avoided - tubes are probably better.

 

Sorry - I can't post any pics.

[lee_shively]

Buy or go to a library and check out John Shaw's book "Closeups in Nature" (I think that's the title, I know that's the writer). It has the best information I've ever seen on close-up photography using virtually every practical device out there for 35mm photography.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Take a look at some of these pictures: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2473697 Some of the photos of insects are take with an EF300/4 IS with extension tubes.

[david_deratzian]

I think you really need both. THe tubes are what allow you to get very close (sometimes too close). When I use them for close-up macro, I can get a lens that normally focuses at 14" to focus at 1 inch or closer. The diopter increases image size on the film, and also somewhat decreases close-focusing. The rings can also be used on long telephoto to decrease what might be a 14 ft close-focus distance to something more manageable. Rings greatly restrict depth of field. I have the Keno rings and the Canon 500D diopter.

[jeff_nolten]

I second the vote on Shaw's Closeups book for all the relevent details. I have had excellent results using either diopters or extension. Like extension, diopters move the focus range of a lens closer to the camera. For example, using Canon's 500D diopter on my 100-400 zoom, infinity focus is moved in to about 18" from the front element. At this distance I'm in the truly macro range. I'm probably going to get the Kenko tube set some time so I have more control over how much I move the focus range. I would like to be able to focus in the range between 18" and 6', its normal MFD. On my old Pentax screw mount system, I used modest extension, ~12-20 mm, on a 300 mm lens to get full frame butterflies without scaring them off.

 

Diopters are convenient on zoom lenses because focus distance shift is similar at all focal lengths, focus then zoom to get the magnification you want. Refocusing is sapposed to be more extreem using extension tubes on zooms. With the 500D, I need to refocus some on my 100-400 but do not on my 75-300. I also found the 75-300 to have a more useful working range and don't remember infinity focus being so close. I would recommend taking your camera and target lenses to a camera store and experimenting with both diopters and tubes. If you go with a diopter, be sure to get a double element one like Canon's 500D.