Extension tubes or macrophoto coupler?

[mike_r4]

Or both?

<p>

I'm looking at some tubes, and couplers for auction. I can buy FD

extension tubes, and I saw a Canon Macrophoto Coupler (includes a

FD25 ext tube). What exactly does the macrophoto coupler do?

<p>

I have an AE-1 Program, and 50mm 1.4, 135mm 3.5, and a Sigma 28mm

2.8 "Mini-Wide II". I use the 50mm much more than the other lenses.

Should I just get the tubes? Does the macrophoto coupler degrade the

image, or would it improve it? I'll be shooting close ups of flowers,

etc with a tripod mostly with Tech Pan, or Velvia.

<p>

Is there something else I should be looking for? I want the best

images I can get. I don't care about ease of use, speed, etc. And I

don't want to spend a lot of money. (I know that last one limits my

choices!) Is there some tube or coupler (or lens) I should watch for

to come up for auction? I had planned to get tubes to use with my

lenses to save money. Now I'm not sure what I should get!

<p>Thanks

[walterh]

Mike where are you located? I live in Germany and have a mint set of extension tubes that I could sell at a fair price. But i will be back home in three weeks - so if you are in a hurry look somewhere else. The extension tubes just do what the name says - extend the distance between lens and body. This allows closer focus. This is the easiest way to go because all automatic will still work. You could also use a bellows. Though better for some applications e.g. in the studio that might be more expensive than tubes and an older bellows may need expensive repair (how long ago did the FD system stop? On the downside you shorten the distance from frontlens to object. A long (say 100mm or 20mm) macro lens would be expensive but better in the working distance. You also get the advantage of continuous operation from infinity to closest distance- with tubes you go in steps. Most likely the optical performance will also be better. Some of the Canon old FD macro lenses are first class and some think better than the latest models.

 

I have no idea what a macro coupler is ? I personally never coupled anything macro - at least as far as i know .-P

 

Cheers.

Walter

[peter_white2]

The Macrophoto Coupler mounts between the lens and the body. It holds the lens by the front, reversing the lens, and has a focusing ring. They came in different threads. Mine is a 52 to hold most FD lenses. They were made in 55 and 58 as well, if my memory serves me well. The focusing ring extends the lens up to 1/2 inch.

[peter_white2]

You can keep auto-diaphram control by attaching the Macro Auroring to the rear of the lens (now facing forward) and using a double cable release. The double cable release attaches to the shutter release on the camera, and to the Macro Autoring. The Macro Autoring then stops down the lens when the cable release is pushed.

[User_502260]

I would recommend the extension tubes. They can also be used on lenses longer than 50mm for closer focusing. The macrophoto coupler can give improved results with a 50mm lenses because it reverses the lens. The problem is that when you do this you lose the linkage to the aperture mechanism. If you don't have the correct atachment then the diaphragm on the New FD lenses will not open fully. You can make one of these attachments by cutting a hole in the back of a rear lens cap. On the older breech lock lenses there is a way to manually set the aperture so you can keep it fully open to focus. This would only be practical for use on a tripod or copy stand because you would then have to close the aperture ring manually before making the exposure. I have used a reverse adapter with a Canon FL lens because these can be closed down manually without any separate attachment. Canon made an Auto Macro Ring which attached to the mount of the reversed lens and worked with a double cable release. One cable would stop the lens down just before the exposure and the other would trip the shutter. I have one of these for Konica but not yet for Canon. on eBay the words Auto Ring usually bring up a different ring which was used with Canon's old CAT flash system.

 

If you do no want to spend much money on a macro lens you could look for a Vivitar Macro Focusing Teleconverter. This works well with a 50mm lens if you stop down. Panagor made an Auto Macro Converter. This works only in the close-up range but also gives surprisingly good results when you close down the lens. Finally, you might look for a Vivitar or Panagor 55mm f/2.8 Macro lens in FD mount. I think the same lens was also sold as a Quantaray with an f/3 marking. These often go for very little money on eBay and are quite good.

[mike_r4]

Thanks for the quick replies!<p>

Walter, I live in Florida, USA. A bellows might be another option for me, too. KEH has a "Bellows FL" in "ex+" condition for $65. Sounds like it would work, from their description. Looks like a nice piece of equipment in the pic. Magnification ranges from 1:1 to 3:1, so I guess I will not be able to shoot at distances in between 1:1 and what the lens will cover with no extension. I think I would be giving up a lot of range, there.<p>

Peter, the coupler I saw is a 52mm. Can I just reset the aperture manually?<p>

Jeff, when you say "improved results", do you mean improved image quality compared to using the same lens with extension tubes? I don't fully understand the part about making an attachment, can I just use the lens at f8, or f5.6, etc?

<p>

Is my 50mm 1.4 lens a good choice here, on my (low) budget?

[awahlster]

Mike for a very good idea of what is available from Canon for closeup work go to:

 

http://www.canonfd.com/choose.htm

 

look down the list of info on the right column for the

 

1982 Canon Macro Brochure in english (pdf)

 

It will explain almost everything in the FD line for closeup work in some detail.

 

I do a lot of nature close up stuff flowers sections of forest floor things like that. And for field work a 50-200mm lens with an extension tube is MUCH easier to use then a bellows. I have used my Auto bellows in the field only a few times and then only for a couple of endangered flowers that I would never distrub (Calypso Orchids being the last one) And you will need a good solid heavy short tripod and unless you get the Auto Bellows you will also want a Focusing rail (which can cost more then the bellows) The FL bellows neds the Canon Macrophoto Coupler to be able to use a double cable release to stop the lens down before the shutter trips. Or you cand set the aperture manually if you have either the older breech lock lens by pushing the aperture lever counter clockwise or with a Manual diaphram adpater (little plastic thingy) if you have newer nFD mount lenses with the chrome button.

 

A 50mm lens and FD 25 tube will give 1-1 with a 100mm lens the same tube will give 1-2 and with a 200mm it will give 1-4.

 

I personally use a Tokina 90mm f2.5 Macro for 1-2 and with it's special optical extension tube for 1-1. I will also use my 200mm f2.8 IF nFd with a FD-50 tube for bugs and such good working distance great resolution. One day I may pickup a 200mm f4.0 Macro but I like the speed of my 200mm f2.8 for focusing.

[peter_white2]

"Peter, the coupler I saw is a 52mm. Can I just reset the aperture manually?"

 

It depends on what lens you have. The early Canon 50mm could be locked down with the signal pins on the rear. But that had a 55mm filter ring. If your 50mm f/1.4 has a 52mm filter ring, you'll need some extra hardware to stop the aperture down with the lens reversed. The optical quality will improve using the lens backwards.

 

See the file that Mark linked to for all the options.

[pensacolaphoto]

Mike: Could you explain to us why you want an extension tube or macrophoto coupler? Do you want to take macro photos? An extension tube may work well with you 135mm lens for close-up photos. I use extension tubes with the 500mm lens.

[dave_s]

Mike, I suggest the first question to ask is what magnification range (and working distance) you plan to be using. You'll generally use different hardware in different magnification ranges, and it may pay to read about this stuff in books. I find the range from 1:10 to maybe 1:2 (closeup, not macro) to be where I like to be. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

 

(i) Tubes are cheap, foolproof, and versatile. With a set of three Vivitar tubes (for example), you'll be able to do everything from maybe 1:10 (short tube on your 135) to greater than 1:1 (long tube on your 50). Quality will be OK for three-dimensional subjects, but not as good as a macro lens.

 

(ii) If you get to 1:1 or above (roughly), you generally want to reverse the lens. Working at high mags like this is a pain, but some folks get off on it. The macrophoto coupler (or other lens reversing adapters) is an inexpensive solution with high quality, but you're stuck with fairly high magnification-- greater than about 1:1.2 (with the 50) and 2:1 (with your 28). These numbers are guesses, because I haven't done it for a long time, but you get the idea.

 

(iii) Another way to get good results at high mag is to put your 50 or your 28 on front of your 135, using a lens coupling ring with two male threads. You can read about this in books. It's basically using the 50 or 28 as a highly corrected supplementary lens. Cheap fix, but limited to really high mags (greater than 2:1).

 

(iv) When the dust clears, a macro lens is probably what you want. For the cost of an Auto Bellows, you may be able to find a 50mm Canon FD macro lens (maybe $100 on the auction site). If you can scare up about $200, you can find an FD 100mm macro lens, which is more versatile. Third party macro lenses are cheaper, and some are said to be really good, but I've never had one.

[mike_r4]

Wow! Thanks for all the great responses!<p>

What I want to do is get closer than my lenses allow, now. 1:1 is probably closer than I need. It sounds like the set of tubes (12, 20 36mm) would do what I want. I would like to be able to cover the range in between what I can do with no extension, and up to around 1:1 at most. Actually, looking through my viewfinder, at closest focus, I can cover about 6"x9" with the 50mm. I'd like to be able to cover say, 3"x4.5", depending on subject size. I think that would be around 1:3?<p>

 

Mark, thanks for the link. Unfortunatly, the pdf file is hanging up my computer for some reason.<p>

 

Dave, there are several Canon 50mm 3.5 macro lenses for auction that are currently at low prices. Is this the lens you refered to? Would it be significantly better than my 50 1.4 for the magnification I described?<p>I think I will just get the tubes for now, and see if they meet my needs.

[walterh]

Mike with 65$ for a bellows you can not go wrong - especially since you have a good return policy there. 'Take some test shots and include one with lens cap on and long exposure while the bellows is fully extended. This way you can check for any light leaks. I would go for it. Its a very good start for macro work. When you order it you can ask if they also happen to have a simple lens inverter - a canon bajonet with a thread for the filter thread on the lens (a simple version of the coupler). You could safe some shipping money.

[dave_s]

Mike-- hi. I believe in the 1:5 to 1:1 range, a 50 macro will significantly outperform a 50/1.4 on tubes. The 50 macro is designed to work in this range. The 50/1.4, of course, is designed and corrected for distant objects.

 

You will get a flatter field with the macro lens and a sharper image, particularly in the corners of the field. Having said that, though, if you're shooting three-dimensional subjects like flowers, and if you don't have critical subject matter in the corners, you might not see much of a difference unless you did a side-by-side comparison.

 

The 50/3.5 macro will go to 1:2 without an extension tube, which is probably around where you want to be. KEH has a couple in 'bargain' condition for $76 right now, or if you're patient, you could get one on ebay for less (with more risk).

 

KEH also has a breechlock 100/4 macro in 'bargain' condition right now for $109, which seems like a hell of a deal. I might go with the 100 macro if I had the choice-- it gives you more working distance, which is nearly always A Good Thing in closeups. It would also fill a focal length gap between your 50 and your 135.

[mike_r4]

I don't know what happened to my last post. I'll try this again...

<p>

It sounds like the tubes would do what I need. I think I will look for a macro lens as Dave suggested, though. It sounds like it will cover just the range I need. If the macro will do the job without the tubes, for $75-100, and have better resolution, I'll go that way. I guess the 100 would give me more working distance, but the 50 should give me more DOF, right? Are they both about equal in resolution, contrast, etc?

<p>

Walter, the bellows is tempting, and looks like a nice piece of equipment. But, if it won't let me cover the 1:5 to 1:1 range it won't suit my needs. I should have stated the range I was looking for in my first post. Maybe I'll take another look at the bellows later, if I need to get closer than the macro will allow.

<p>

Thanks again, to everyone who offered advice. :)

[peter_white2]

Neither the 50mm macro nor the 100mm macro will get to 1:1 magnification without an extension tube. The 50mm will have slightly greater depth of field at any given magnification and f stop.

[mike_r4]

Oops! I should have said 1:2. I believe both lenses go up to 1:2. I'm not sure if both focus to infinity as well, but 1:2 will be enough magnification.

[dave_s]

Common misconception, but not correct. I think the reason people believe this is that the OOF areas are magnified at longer focal lengths, which gives a visual impression of less depth of field.

 

Magnification is the only determinant of depth of field, assuming you hold the f-number and acceptable circle of confusion constant.

[dave_s]

Sorry, simultaneous posts. My last comment was about whether the 50 inherently has more DoF than the 100 at any given aperture.

 

Incidentally, the Canon FD macro lenses seem to work well at infinity.

[mike_r4]

<b>"Common misconception, but not correct. I think the reason people believe this is that the OOF areas are magnified at longer focal lengths, which gives a visual impression of less depth of field.

Magnification is the only determinant of depth of field, assuming you hold the f-number and acceptable circle of confusion constant."</b>

 

<br>

I'm not sure I understand this. Looking at the DOF scale on my 50mm, the lens should focus from 2' to infinity at f22. My 135mm shows that it should focus from about 10 or 12' to infinity at f22. Similar difference at close up end of scale. Does this change at closer ranges? Am I missing something (probably)? If it's a common misconception, I must be common! ;)

<p>

<b>"Incidentally, the Canon FD macro lenses seem to work well at infinity."</b>

<br>

Another reason the 100 would round out my kit, as you said earlier. Would it be a decent portrait lens? Better than my (cheap) 135?

[dave_s]

Hi Mike.

 

First off, I think you may be reading off the meters scale on your lenses, not the feet. The values you quote (I only calculated it for the 50mm) would be OK if your acceptable circle of confusion were about 0.09mm in diameter. This is 5 or 10 times bigger than you'd want if you were making an 8 x 10 enlargement.

 

Second thing is I owe you guys and particularly Peter an apology for being a pedantic horse's ass in my last post. I actually ran the calculations, and I realized something was left out. When people say (as I did) that magnification is the only important factor, they're assuming that the final print will be viewed at a distance corresponding to the focal length of the lens. This is often an assumption in published DoF formulas, but it isn't the way people view prints, particularly closeups.

 

So when I did the numbers, I found out, to my chagrin, that a 50mm lens at 1:1 magnification has exactly twice the DoF of a 100mm lens at 1:1. Apologies.

[mike_r4]

Yes, I was reading meters on both lenses, not feet. And no, I never worked on the Hubble Telescope! Doh! ;)

<p>

Thank you very much for all the help, and information. This has been extremely informative for me. I will be shopping for a macro lens in the near future. I just purchased yet another lot of Tech Pan, so I've spent my "allowance" for this week already! I'll probably go through KEH for the lens, since their (bargain) prices seem to match the auction prices I've seen this weekend.

[User_502260]

You might look on the internet for an old copy of The Manual Of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz. It has served as a very useful reference since I bought my copy in 1979. The book explains all of the concepts and provides excellent illustrations. The reason you get better results from a normal lens when it is reversed is that you get a flatter field. When you focus on the center, the edges will also stay in focus. If a standard lens is used unreversed on a bellows or extension tubes and the extension is too great you will get curvature of field. The center and the edges will not stay in focus at the same time.

 

The Bellows FL is a nicely made piece but with that much extension you will need to reverse the lens and with an FD lens you will lose control of the aperture mechanism without an Auto Macro Ring. The Lefkowitz book shows how you can use enlarging lenses on a bellows for very good results. Even high quality enlarging lenses are selling for very little money on eBay.

[mukul_dube]

Dave and Jeff have said nearly all that needed to be said. For flowers and such-like, extension tubes are the least expensive option. I have used Canon's M Set (four tubes, no aperture coupling) since 1975 or so. Together, they pretty much cover the entire range I need. I use my set of three auto tubes only when working in bright light or with flash. Consideration: vibration. For copying work, I have found that a normal lens gives reasonable results when stopped well down and focussed somewhere between the middle of the finder image and its edges. Other focal lengths can also be used: for example, I found 35 mm to be the best in copying slides. Reversing the lens gives a flatter field, but if a truly flat field is wanted, a macro lens or an enlarging lens are the only options. Since the first was too expensive for me and since I had an enlarger anyway, my choice was made for me. My 75 mm enlarging lens (standard for 6 x 6 cm. negatives) turned out to be convenient in use, and its optical performance was excellent. Depth of field may be of significance only mathematically, since at high magnifications there's little practical difference between, say, 0.125 mm and 0.25 mm.