80-200mm f2.8D with tubes or Tamron sp 90mm Di ?

[nikon_rh50]

I have a D50 and I recently got a 80-200mm f2.8 D. I need a macro or

close-up lens and I can't decide if I should get the Tamron SP 90mm Di

or just a Kenko DG Tubes added to the 80-200mm. My question is about

the image quality and sharpness between the two setup. Which is better

or are they very close? I don't care much about the size/weight of the

lenses. Of course the tubes will same me loads of money.

[jc5066]

Another option is Cannon D500 Close-up lens. I know a few guys that shoot with this w/great results. No loss of light with this method either. The glass is top of the line so you don't need to worry about degrading your image w/ this diopter over using others.

[erik_loza]

No comparison, in my experience. I tried both the Canon 500D and any number of my

length tubes on the 80-200mm and while the results might be better than a diopter on a

cheapie zoom, they weren't what I typically get from the lone 80-200mm and cannot

compare to images from the 105mm on macro subjects. Maybe other could get that

combo to work for them, but I never could. Once you get used to the results from a

dedicated macro lens on small things, everything else tends to be a let-down. Good luck

in your search.

[etan_lightstone]

Extension tubes only work best for lenses around 50mm. The advantage is its just a tube.. so there is NO degredation of optical quality.

 

I'm not going to explain how the optics work.. but basically with an extension tube... the shorter the focal length the greater the magnification. But... once you reach around 20mm, the inifity focus distance actually becomes a plane INSIDE the actual lens... which is bad.

 

Anyhow at the 80mm setting you might notice some magnification, but at 200 almost none.

 

With a lens like that as mentioned above.. its recommended that you use something like the canon 500d close-up filter. Those are made for telephotos.

 

The 77mm one is $140 at b&H which isn't too bad. Still a ton cheaper than any REAL macro lens. Plus you don't the added annoyance of having to remove and remount your lens with a tube everytime you need to take a macro shot... you just have to screw on the front filter.

[vivek iyer]

<i>Extension tubes only work best for lenses around 50mm. The advantage is its just a tube.. so there is NO degredation of optical quality.</i>

<p>

I have no clue what that means.

<p>

Extension tubes work well with any focal lengths.

<p>

Image degradation (increased aberrations) when a tube is used depends on

the lens used <br>

and would usually render inferior quality images, unless the lens is corrected for that magnification range.

[aravind raman]

A dedicated macro will always be better than other methods of getting close focussing.

<p>

Nikon has just released a Nikon Micro lens with AFS and VR, which is supposed to be released by next month ( i think). If you could wait for sometime, you could get a clean 105 nikon macro cheaply everywhere!</p>

 

Aravind

[erik_loza]

I paid about $400 for my 105mm Nikkor AF, new, in 1997. I see them for sale, used, for

the same price these days. Not a bad investment, eh? No matter how many whiz-bang

lenses Nikon introduces, their stalwarts will always hold their price and value. Just take a

look at nice examples of the 85mm f1.4 AIS, 300mm f2.8, or even the 400mm's. Old

lenses, but thay still command a healthy price. No matter what Nikon does on the new

side, there are still lots of us with F3's, etc.

[mawz]

Phoenix makes a cheapo 100mm macro lens that will give better results than the 500D adaptor, but costs only $20-30 more. The optics are good, but the construction is appropriate to the cost. I'd distinctly recommend that solution over a close-up adaptor.

 

personally, I just picked up a 55mm f3.5 Micro-NIKKOR-P.C. for my macro work. Payed about $100 for it (yeah, I know, it's cheaper on oBoy, but I got a real warranty this way, and people to yell at if it breaks). Of course, this won't meter on the D50.

[michael_bradtke]

Go with a macro lens.

 

The Tamron is supposed to be very nice. The Tamron is reputed to be very sharp with very good color. The price isn't to bad either.

 

I have not used it but I do have three different Nikon Micro lenses. I also have the 80-200 and the Kenko tubes. The 80-200 becomes a PITA to use with tubes. Its big and heavy and having all that weight hanging out there makes it hard to get sharp images.

 

Some times I will stick a 12mm tube on my 80-200 sometimes just to get it to focus a little closer.But I worry about the weight of the lens on a plastic tube.

 

I use this set up for hand held shots in bright sun and I always support the lens with one hand.

 

Just FYI to reach one to one with tubes you need to have the same length of tube as the focal length of the lens. So with the zoom at the wide end you would need 80 mm of extension tube. At the long end 200. So you can see that this could be a very unwieldy set up

 

 

 

Michael

[etan_lightstone]

If you really are leaning towards the tamron 90 macro, I'd at least check out the Sigma 105 macro, and the Sigma 150 macro.

 

They are all good prices, good build quality.

 

The Pheonix lens mentioned above is only 1:2 magnification, and only 1:1 with the supplied screw on adapter. It's focus motor is near horrible, not a pleasure to use if you're going to use your macro lens as a regular lens as well (I.e. portraits). Don't waste your money.

[charles_miller]

I tried a Canon 500D diopeter on my 80-200 f2.8 AFS and the results were pretty good, but not as good as a macro lens. For comparison, I used a Nikon 6D with a thread adapter on a 105mm f2.5, and the results were nearly as good as a macro lens, at least in the center. Your mileage may vary.

[nikon_rh50]

Thank you everyone for the comments. Looks like I will get the macro lens instead of the extension tubes. Its been a great help.

 

R.A Hormillosa

[ky2]

<i>"Extension tubes only work best for lenses around 50mm"</i> -- Strictly incorrect. You can match tubes to longer lenses. I do that with my 180 and 105 lenses.

[etan_lightstone]

I said "work best".. I didn't say ONLY work.

 

They are most effective at shorter focal lengths.

[joel_blacher]

Perhaps you're referring to the fact that longer focal lengths require more extension to reach the same magnification than a shorter lens would, thus making higher magnifications more cumbersome to maneuver? As far as the actual optical performance goes, since there are no optics in an extention tube...As far as which route to take, a dedcated macro lens is a wonderful tool. In the 90-105 range my favorite is the Tamron and I've had all three (Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron). As mentioned, all are built well (not equal but all will stand professional use), and all razor sharp. The Tamron has something special about it. The bokeh has been praised universally, and I find the color and contrast to be spectacular. This and the MicroNikkor 200AFD are THE stand out macro lenses IMO. Don't worry too much...they are all great lenses.