Extension Tube Quality?

[mccormick]

What is the difference between a $15 extension tube on Ebay and a $150 Kenko extension tube? They are just

tubes used to separate the lens from the camera right? So how can one tube be ten times better than another?

[richard_driscoll]

In beginning a tube was a tube but then they added automatic diaphragm coupling so you could view at full

aperture. Then full aperture metering arrived so a coupling was added so you could do full aperture metering

with the tube. There you have the Nikon PK and PN tubes. I think the Kenko ones add electrical coupling so that

the current AF lenses will meter as well but I'm not sure.

[jackie_muu]

The difference might be whether they have exposure meter, exposue coupling and auto focuse ability.

[tommyinca]

The comon ebay $15 extension tube are just plain tube with tread. I had one set and there are 3 things wrong with

it.

 

1. It's inner is shiny and cast a flare. This is the main reason I got rid of it.

 

2. Mechanically suck. 2nd reason

 

3. The K1 to K5 set is tons better at arround $25-$45

 

Lack of auto aperture and electrical are actually the least of the problems, for me.

[mccormick]

In other words, it is harder to take a good picture with the less expensive extension tubes because everything is manual and you can't control the aperture?

[joseph_smith3]

And some are plastic and some are metal. The metal ones are stronger and provide a better bond between the lens and the tube or camera so separation becomes unlikely. Joe Smith

[waltflanagan]

For $150 you are probably looking at a set of 3 Kenko extension tubes. You can stack them together to focus even closer. The Kenkos with electronic contacts will maintain metering, autofocus, and vibration reduction. I'm very happy with them although when you stack all 3 they aren't as sturdy and introduce some vibration.

[mccormick]

ok, new question then. I am on a rather low budget since I just spent all my money on a D60 and a 18mm-55mm and 55mm-200mm lens so what is the best choice of extension tube to get the most for your money (Still the Kenkos? What is the next step down?)? I am also planning on picking up a reversal ring so would an extension tube even be necessary?

[joe_a2]

Low budget?? Pick up a "Nikon Close-Up No.2" filter and screw it on the front of your 18-55mm lens. You can pick them up on eBay for $10-15 including shipping.

[mccormick]

I have a close-up +3, but it wasn't quite strong enough. Do the smaller mm lenses work better for macro photos? I have been using the filter with my 55mm-200mm, maybe that was my problem?

[mccormick]

Can't edit responses I guess. Well, my budget is less than $75 for necessary macro gear if that helps narrow the possibilities.

[robert_hooper1]

I've been looking into this myself, Nick. I'll probably purchase a Kenko set of three extension tubes (12-20-36mm) from

a Hong Kong vendor on eBay to use with my Nikon 300mm f4 ED IF.

 

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/407711-

REG/Kenko_UNITUBE25DGN_25mm_UniplusTube_DG_Extension.htm">B&H Photo</a> sells a single Kenko 25mm

extension tube for $79. plus shipping.

 

l

[leif_goodwin8]

For macro you generally do not AF, and the higher grade cameras will meter without electronic couplings. So you might do best to buy used Nikon tubes. The build quality is far higher than that of any third party ones.

[mccormick]

So are the extension tubes much better than the reversal rings? AFAIK the reversal rings are fairly inexpensive and make the shots much better. Am I wrong?

 

Also, can anybody tell me if using a close-up filter with a smaller mm lens yields better results than with a larger mm one?

[jackie_muu]

For $75, I think the best way is a reverse ring with 52mm thread and a manual Nikon 50mm f/1.8 E. You may also try your luck of a Sigma/Quantaray 50mm f/2.8 Macro on eBay. Some less than $100 Nikon 55mm micro are also available on eBay but I think they only go down to 1:2.

[mccormick]

Well I apparently do not understand the lens mm system. I thought that a 18mm lens is more of a wide angle lens and a 200mm lens is more of a zoom lens. So why is it that a 50mm or 55mm would be better for macros than a 200mm?

[jackie_muu]

mm of a lens means the focal length of a lens. It determines the angle of view of that lens.

 

The 50mm and 55mm lenses that I mentioned are all fix-focal-length lenses. That means you cannot zoom them. Lenses at this focal length used to be "normal" lenses and they can be made with few glasses (about 4 pieces), at low cost (lens than $120 for new), and VERY high optical quality (especially in terms of resolution). You may also find some 50mm lens are more expensive just because they are specialized for macro/micro or they have a larger aperture (say 1.4).

 

Nowadays for DSLRs, a zoom lens seems to be more "normal" than a 50mm lens. Zoom means the focal length is not fixed. You can change it anywhere within xxmm and xxmm (e.g. 18mm to 55mm or 55mm to 200mm). For DX format DSLRs, 18mm is wide, 35mm is kind of "normal", 200mm is very telephoto.

 

Now let's change the topic. When talking about the front thread of a lens, the mm means the diameter of the front rim of the lens barrel. This number helps you to select filters with proper diameter. For example, a 18-55mm lens may have a 52mm front thread. A 105mm VR micro lens may have a 62mm front thread. If you decide to use reverse ring for your macro photography, make sure the thread on that ring matches your intentional lens, otherwise you may need extra adapter rings.

[sutejok]

without the extra electronic contacts, you are going to be shooting at your max aperture always, which will produce a very narrow depth of field.

 

and yes, autofocusing and metering can be helpful sometimes.

[alex_lofquist]

Reversing rings are not a replacement for an extension tube. Optically they will be of no advantage (actually detrimental) until you are going to significantly greater than 1:1 reproduction ratio! I have the Kenko Uniplus 25mm tube for use when I need to get just a little bit closer with my teles. It's well made and couples properly to my AF Nikkors.

[mccormick]

Thanks for the info Jackie and all the others that posted! I am going to have to join this site, seems like it can really help me advance my photography (looks like a $50 macro budget now haha).

 

So fixed lenses are better for macro photography because they produce high optical quality (meaning they are able to focus better on the object and produce a crisper image)? What are telephoto lenses good for then?

 

Yea I had to deal with the mm of the front thread when picking up a few filters (52mm actually) so I will make sure to get the right reversal ring size.

 

More Questions! When I get the reversal ring would it be better to use it with the wide angle lens or telephoto lens? Isn't there a way to combine lenses? Would that help with the zoom/ratio?

[mccormick]

Didn't see the posts after Jackie before...

 

So you are saying it would be wiser to invest in a decent extension tube before a reversal ring Alex? From my research and vague understanding it seemed like the reversal ring alone did a lot for the zoom/ratio, even when trying to get to a 1:1.

 

I am going to read the Macro article here once again and see if I can pull anything else from it now.

[stanleys]

The 18-55mm will give poor results with any extension rings or close-up filters (i've tried). An E series 50mm f1.8 + a cheap extension ring will work way better for not alot of money.

[jackie_muu]

Nick, the best choice of the three (macro/micro lens, reverse ring, extension tubes) is the macro/micro lens, although its magnification ratio is not always the largest. When you have the macro/micro lens, you don't need the other two.

 

The macro/micro lens typically will let you a magnification ratio of 1:1. Reverse ring makes the reversed lens a true magnifying glass so the magnification ratio is larger than 1:1. The extension tube increases the maginification ratio of the original lens, with which the magnification ratio is rarely get to larger than or even close to 1:1 for a non-macro/micro lens.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

Nick -

 

reverse lens is not a beginner method. It's kind of difficult & I would recommend an extension tube or a diopter before I'd recommend reverse lens. Much technique is involved.

 

JMHO

 

Lil :-)

[joe_a2]

Nick.... You don't really have a lens that will work with a basic extension tube. Your two lenses, the 18-55 and the

55-200, are modern electronic designs. So the only thing that might work is the Kenkos; but I'd get some feedback

from people who've actually shot that exact setup before spending that kind of money on electronic tubes.

 

All extension tubes do is move the lens further from the film/sensor. By doing this you are able to focus closer than

with the lens alone. At the same time, you can no longer focus to infinity with a tube. You simply move the range of

focus closer.

 

Do you have a generic "close up #3", or a genuine "Nikon Close-Up No.3T"? Since you didn't mention the T, I'll

guess it's a generic #3. The real Nikon Close-Up filters are very

good, optically, and I wouldn't compare them to a generic filter. The Nikon Close-Up No.2 is best matched to your

18-55. The Nikon Close-Up No.4T is better suited to your 55-200. Try your close up filter on the 18-55 set around

50-55mm in the meantime, but I'd buy a $10 No.2 on theBay with your budget.

 

You have to keep in mind that your budget is very very very low for macro. Too low, honestly. So spend a few

bucks, get something simple, and get your feet wet. Find out what you like shooting. Then you can decide where

to go, equipment wise. There's lots of options in the $150 to $500 range.