Extension tube for Nikon 200-400mm VR AFS

[senthil_palaniappun]

Hello All,

 

I would appreciate any suggestions.

 

I am thinking about buying an extension tube for Nikon 200-400mm f4 VR AFS on

F100 body. Would that be good for 1:1 mag and preferably more? If so, which

tube? Is vignetting a problem? What about TTL metering and AF on AFS?

 

I also have Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 with Canon 500d close-up, but intend to have

more mag. Can the ext tube be used on this lens too?

 

Thanks in advance,

Senthil

[joseph_smith3]

With your f 100 body the use of any Nikon ext tube will preserve metering but you will lose AF. To maintain AF you will have to buy a non Nikon brand in a Nikon mount with enough electronic contacts to preserve AF and metering. Someone will have to tell you which one to get and if you will run into vignetting problems. I do not know how much extension you will need to go 1:1 and if it will vary with your focal length. . Joe Smith

[Michael R Freeman]

Your *only* option for the 200~400mm f/4 VR is a third party extension tube such as Kenko. Since it is a G lens, the manual Nikon PK/PN tubes won't work (no aperture control).

 

The Nikon tubes will however work on your 80~200mm f/2.8.

 

In any event, I think you are going to need a *lot* of extension to get 1:1 with either lens. The AIS 105mm f/2.8 Micro needs about 50mm of extension (via the PN-11) to get to 1:1, and it focuses to 1:2 without a tube. Neither of these lenses focuses to 1:2.

 

However, there is no reason you can't use *both* the PN-11 tube AND the 500D Canon diopter at the same time on the 80~200mm. But I have no idea what the maximum reproduction ratio will be.

[senthil_palaniappun]

Thanks guys. I read somewhere that the Kenko DG extension set doesn't retain AF on AFS lenses. Is that true? If so, then I might have no choice, than to MF on the 200-400mm or use the extension set with 80-200 + 1.4x TC + Canon 500D. Does that sound right?

 

Thanks.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Would that be good for 1:1 mag and preferably more?</i><P>

 

Not even close without an ungodly amount of extension. Remember this simple and

reasonably accurate formula:<P>

 

magnification = extension/focal length<P>

 

So to get to a magnification of 1:1, you will need about 200 mm of extension when

zoomed to 200 mm and about 400 mm of extension when zoomed to 400 mm. Probably

somewhat less will be required in 'real life' due to the lens' native focus ability, but <B>A

LOT</B> of extension is needed. Another thing to keep in mind is that the lens won't

stay in focus when zoomed.<P>

 

<I>I also have Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 with Canon 500d close-up, but intend to have more

mag. Can the ext tube be used on this lens too?</i><P>

 

Yes, and with a given amount of extension you'll get more magnification with the 80-200

than with the 200-400, especially if you are using the former with the 500D. Yet another

thing to remember: with the 500D, you get the greatest magnification when zoomed to

the <B><I>longest</i></b> focal length setting, but with an extension tube you get the

greatest mangnification when zoomed to the <B><I>shortest</i></b> focal length

setting.<P>

 

No matter how good they are within their normal focus range, neither of these lenses are

likely to be world-beaters when used as macro lenses. Assuming you could extend them

enough, they might be good enough, but not as good as what you'd get with a purpose-

designed macro lens.<P>

 

Finally, don't ignore teleconverters in your effort to attain more magnification. They can

be combined with extension tubes. See <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GsAS&tag=">this recent thread</a> over on the Nature forum,

or <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DebG"> this

less recent thread</a> in the Nikon forum.

[alex_lofquist]

You're going to need a minimum of about six or seven inches of extension tube to reach 1:1 with the 200-400 f/4 EDIF. Optically it may not even be particularly good at that close distance. An option is teaming a TC-14E with what you already have. The longest focal length lens that I was happy with for macros was my 300 f/4 in conjunction with a TC-14B and a 25mm tube. Anything longer was too unwieldy! For higher magnification, go to shorter lenses.

[david_h._hartman]

Senthil,<br>

<br>

The 200~400/4.0G ED-IF AF-S VR is an internal focus lens so it

will not require 400mm to get to 1:1 when set at 400mm unless the

focus is at infinity. The actual focal length of the lens is

shorter at the minimum focus distance. For example the 300/4.5 ED-IF

AI is about a 245mm lens when set to its closest focus.

Still it will require quite a stack of tubes to get the 200~400/4.0

to 1:1. Such a setup will absolutely require a lens cradle to

protect the bayonets, particularly that of the camera and lens.<br>

<br>

With my 400/5.6 ED AI, (a non-IF design), I can obtain nearly 1:2

(0.49x) by adding three PN-11 tubes and using the full 39mm of

helical extension built into the lens. For a lens cradle I use a

Wimberley P-50 lens plate and small block of aluminum under the

second PN-11 tube. The tube closest to the lens floats and helps

relieve stress on the bayonets. The third PN-11 is optional at

the rear and is not supported by the lens cradle. This setup is

quite long and a bit cumbersome.<br>

<br>

Back to the 200~400/4.0G ED-IF AF-S VR, I would not bother with

brand-x tubes. These are plastic not aluminum. I think you might

have problems with vignette. The do not include a tripod collar

and at least one tube must have collar for the lens cradle.

Finally the Nikon tubes do not have an electronic contact pass

through so youd need to modify a PN-11. It can be done and

you might want to do this in the future.<br>

<br>

I would start with a Nikon TC-14E II and then a Canon 500D close-up

lens. With a 200~400/4.0G ED-IF AF-S VR Id want the TC-14E

anyway. This will get you out to a handsome 560mm f/5.6 and

retain VR. The Canon 500D will cost no illumination and the IF

costs none so the slowest youll get is f/5.6.<br>

<br>

Just a guess but if the 200~400/4.0G VR has a focal length of

perhaps 340mm at its closest focus distance and 400mm (marked)

your exposure factor will be approximately 1.33 (0.4 stops) with

the addition of a PN-11 tube. Thats just one tube and

assumes that the lens is symetrical which it surely is not.<br>

<br>

Another possibility is a 300/4.0D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor and PN-11(s).

With a 300/4.5 ED-IF AI Nikkor a PN-11, PK-13 and PK-12 will get

you out to 1:2 (0.5x). This setup works quite nicely on film. For

a DSLR Id really want the 300/4.0D ED-IF AF-S. Being a

prime, not a zoom lens I would think the 300/4.0 ED-IF AF-S would

perform much better with a PN-11 or two and a TC-14E.<br>

<br>

I really should give you a worse time about this because you have

the 200~400/4.0G VR and I dont but I guess Ill settle

for pint of B&Js, Cherry Garcia ice-cream.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ShunCheung]

Are we talking about putting a Canon 500D close up lens in front of the 200-400mm/f4 VR? That lens has a very large front element and, I believe, no filter thread. The 77mm 500D is already $140. Even though you could somehow find one big enough to fit the 200-400mm, it would cost a lot and you need to tape it on.

 

IMO, you are better off getting to 1:1 with your 80-200mm zoom.

[senthil_palaniappun]

Thank you. Yup, I think 200-400mm would be outta question. And yup, Canon 500D max thread size is 77mm, which I have. Now, about using extension tube on 80-200mm + Canon 500D, the better choice would be then Kenko DG set; right?

 

To retain AF, the setup would be Camera --> extension tube (Kenko DG) --> +/- TC14EII --> Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 --> Canon 500D. Does this sound ok? Still am not sure about vignetting and optical quality of this setup.

 

Thanks.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"To retain AF, the setup would be Camera --> extension tube (Kenko DG) --> ﾱ TC14EII --> Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 --> Canon 500D ... Now, about using extension tube on 80-200mm + Canon 500D, the better choice would be then Kenko DG set, right?" </i><P>

 

Not if your camera body (you don't say what you have) will meter with manual lenses. As Dave Hartman noted, the PN-11 has a tripod mount while the Kenko tubes do not. Stability will be very important for this rig.<P>

 

Do you have the AF-S 80~200/2.8 or the AF 80~200/2.8D? The TC-14E will not mount (or autofocus) on the AF-D version.

<P>

You will need to modify the TC-14E (a relatively simple procedure) to mount it on a 80~200/2.8D. But a modified converter still won't autofocus the lens. Not that it really matters, as I expect the autofocus will be pretty much useless anyway, as the combo of TC-14E + PN-11 tube (or equivalent extension) will cost you 3 stops of light (f/8 effective aperture).<P>

 

I have a modified TC-14E, PN-11 and the 80~200/2.8D (2 ring with tripod mount). While I have never used this setup, the PN-11 + TC-14E + 80~200/2.8D (in that order) could be fitted with a generic 6" Arca-Swiss plate and small spacer (under the PN-11) to make a very stable rig. I haven't the foggiest inkling what the pictorial results would be.

[Michael R Freeman]

... the PN-11 + TC-14E + 80~200/2.8D (in that order) ... I haven't the foggiest inkling what the pictorial results would be.

 

A "quick and dirty" test shows me that the above combo (without the 500D) will give you 1:2 magnification at 200mm and approximately 0.8m working distance. No apparent hard vignetting (on an F4) wide open or with the master lens at f/11. Viewfinder is (as expected for f/8) very dim.

 

A lot of work (and frustration), when an AIS 105/2.8 Micro would give the same magnification (1:2) at an effective f/4, and a much easier to use rig.

[senthil_palaniappun]

Oops, sorry forgot to give complete info of my setup. I have F100 body and the 80-200mm f2.8 is AFS, which has the tripod collar. So I guess, Kenko would still not AF on AFS. And anyways, MF is a better way to focus for macro work.

 

So in that case my understanding is, F100 --> extenstion tube (PN-11) --> +/- TC14EII --> 80-200mm AFS --> Canon 500D would be best bet. True, this might be a pretty cumbersome combo, but since I don't do too much macro, at least as yet, this is still better than buying a separate macro lens. I am already broke from the 200-400mm lens purchase! But that's a wonderful lens. Have used it on 2 safaris. And am just doing photography as a hobby.

[senthil_palaniappun]

BTW - does PN-11 alone on 80-200mm w/o TC14 cost about 2 stops of light?

[Michael R Freeman]

I'm not sure *exactly* what you will loose with the AF-S 80~200/2.8, but my 80~200/2.8D loses approximately 2 full stops with the PN-11 attached.

[mark_chappell]

<I>So in that case my understanding is, F100 --> extenstion tube (PN-11) --> +/- TC14EII

--> 80-200mm AFS --> Canon 500D would be best bet.</i><P>

 

I don't know about optical quality or possible mechanical coupling limitations, but to get the

highest magnification the tube should go between lens and converter, not between camera

and converter, i.e.,:<P>

 

F100 --> TC14 --> tube(s) -->lens

[Michael R Freeman]

Mark is correct. With the PN-11 tube between the converter and lens I get approximately 1:1.5 with the 80~200/2.8D at minimum focus, vs. 1:2 the other way around. No apparent problems with the mechanical linkages (AI tabs/rings and aperture stopdown levers).

[cliff_lesergent]

"<i>I read somewhere that the Kenko DG extension set doesn't retain AF on AFS lenses. Is that true?</i>"<p>

Not, not true. The AF works just fine on AF-S lenses with the Kenko DG tubes.