Extension tube recommendation please...

[dan_n1]

<p>hi all,<br>

I am about to get extension tube(s) for Hasselblad V system camera. Lenses are: 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm, 1.4x PC Mutar, Proxar #1 and #2.<br>

I will use the extension tube for macro works.<br>

Which one the most useful you recommend if I only get one?<br>

Which ones the most useful you recommend if I get 2?<br>

thanks in advance,</p>

<p> </p>

[john_layton]

<p>The two most practical lenses in your lineup for macro work are the 80 and 150. For maximum efficiency and continuity of focus, do the following: Place the 80 and 150 on a flat surface - and with each lens set for infinity focus, measure the height of each lens. Next, set each lens to its closest focus, and measure again. Subtract minimum from maximum length for each lens, and use this as a guide for an extension tube for each lens. Ideally, so that there are no "focus gaps" (lens with tube vs lens without) - each tube should measure slightly less than the measured focus-travel distance. </p>

<p>When I owned some Hassy gear (how I miss this!), I had a 120 CF Makro - and a 32mm tube worked perfectly...as the lens' infinity to close physical extension just about equalled this length.</p>

<p>My sense is that if you do the above, you will, in addition to not having focus gaps for the 80 and 150, also have some extra versatility in being able to combine tubes with each lens, plus use them in conjunction with the Proxars. </p>

<p>But in the longer term - if you intend to hold on to your Hassy gear...you really ought to consider a 120mm lens - either in its newer (CF/CFI f/4) or older (C f/5.6) configuration. The 5.6 version and first generation CF f/4 version are available at decent prices, and each offers truly stellar performance at distances from macro out to about 5 feet, and very good to excellent performance beyond this (better at infinity if stopped down). Hope this helps.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>What is "most useful" depends on what you use it for.</p>

<p>Hasselblad has a guide for closups with various lenses and extension tubes (<a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/b257f2b0-cd24-497b-b21f-47dcf6ee295a-Closeup.pdf">http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/b257f2b0-cd24-497b-b21f-47dcf6ee295a-Closeup.pdf</a>), You'll find this useful in the field as well as in front of your computer.</p>

<p>You should ultimately get a set of at least three tubes - 16, 32 and 56 mm. For complete range overlap, you need an 8 mm tube, but this is the least useful overall.</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>I never did truly "macro" work, but had the 8/16/32 and could hardly ever use the 32 because it was so powerful. You can actually experiment with your own uses by just holding the lens in front of the camera until things are magnified as you would like. You can actually see fine if the sun isn't right in your eyes.</p>

<p>Buy these use, I sold them so cheap it made my heart thump!</p>

[kparratt]

<p>First just to clarify one point. Macro photography refers to magnification on the film 1:1 and greater, up to 10x on the film, when the definition microscopy comes into use .<br /> If that is indeed what you mean, 1:1 is achieved when the extension is equal to the nominal focal length.<br /> Therefor: The 80mm lens requires 80mm of extension, and so forth, with the lenses you have.<br /> Forget the 50 and go for the 80. The 150 will also work but either with a stack of extension tubes or the extension bellow.<br /> I have the earlier "C" extension ring set of three which includes the 10mm, 21 and 55mm. (These are compatible with the later series, in sizes already mentioned above.)<br /> With these I can achieve 1:1 with the 80mm, but I prefer to use the bellows unit.<br /> There was also a variable extension ring, made originally for the 135mm S-Planar (Later 'Macro Planar'), which was the best macro lens objective ever made for Hasselblad, with a very close second being the 120mm.<br /> However, for now, focus on rings for the 80. Using the 150 allows more working distance from the lens to the subject, which can be an advantage in terms of illumination of the subject. But you will not achieve 1:1 with two rings only.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>Macro photography refers to magnification on the film 1:1 and greater, up to 10x on the film, when the definition microscopy comes into use .<br /></em><br>

Nonsense! I suppose you maintain every camera manufacturer is wrong in this respect. In the non-dweeb world, macro means closeup, and anything greater than about 1:4 qualifies.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>And when Nikon says "Micro?"</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>For working close to 1:1 magnification ("macro"), 56 mm or a bellows is suitable. For doing close-ups, magnifications more like 1:8 to 1:3, the 16 and 32 are more suitable. The biggest problem in my opinion with the longest tubes are that when using them, the variation in magnification achievable by the helicoid in the lens is quite limited and thus one easily ends up switching tubes back and forth.</p>

[kerkko_kehravuo]

<p>16 mm, 32 mm and 56 mm set has worked for me.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>And when Nikon says "Micro?"</em></p>

<p>Ditto. It is what it is.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>With regard to Oskar's post, the tables provided by Hasselblad (<a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/b257f2b0-cd24-497b-b21f-47dcf6ee295a-Closeup.pdf">http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/b257f2b0-cd24-497b-b21f-47dcf6ee295a-Closeup.pdf</a>) allow you to quickly choose a tube/lens combination based on the size of the subject. This is much more intuitive than the usual closeup specifications based on focusing distance.</p>

<p>For example, you wish to shoot a flower sized about 6x8 inches, you could use a 16mm tube on an 80mm lens to cover a width ranging from 7.1 to 11 inches. With a 120mm Makro lens, you could use an 8 mm tube (7.5" to 1'8.7"), 16mm tube (5.9" to 1'4.5") or 32mm tube (4.3" to 8.3"). The Makro lens has the advantage of a longer helix range than most lenses, hence the overlap.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>I'd suggest two books, first, an earlier edition (unless you want more emphasis on the digital stuff) of Wildi's "The Hasselblad Manual" and second Nardin's "The Hasselblad System Compendium". Between those two, you will see what's been available, and what is suggested. Both can be had on Amazon for ~$10 each, IIRC. I have Wildi's second edition, works fine for the older 500 and 200 series cameras.</p>

[dan_n1]

<p>thanks all....</p>

<p>after reading your posts and searching some more on the net, here are my preferences:<br>

1- 120mm Macro Planar<br>

2- or a set of tubes (16, 32, 56)<br>

the #1 is quite pricey. I may start with the #2 at the 32.<br>

thanks again</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Good choice.</p>

<p>Great lens, and the 32 mm tube is the perfect companion for it.</p>

<p>If you want to read up on some macro-related important stuff, <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTComp.aspx">look here</a>.<br>

And a little web-based applet that does calculations for you (and playing around with it will show what different lenses can do with how much added extension, etc.) <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTCuC.aspx">can be found here</a>.</p>

[dan_n1]

<p>thanks Q.G,<br>

well.. knowing me, I may end up getting both #1 and #2.... it's a matter of time..<br>

:-)</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Regarding Edward Ingold's rather rude dismissal of my post as "nonsense", read <a href="http://photography.about.com/od/gloss3/g/Macro.htm"><strong>this</strong> </a> .<br>

.. and even better, a very instructive page here: <a href="http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/macro.html"><strong>Macro Photography for beginners</strong> </a> , which also states the technical definition.<br>

I first obtained my information years ago from Zeiss and Leitz literature.<br>

I put forward the information as understood and given in these and other technical documents since the beginning of photographic optics.<br>

That camera manufacturers have begun to adopt misnomers is an unfortunate fact of the times. It is a market driven corruption. When this "common usage" phenomenon is then slammed on the table by statements like that of Edward's it simply results in the dumbing down of knowledge.</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>I own the Makro Planar, and with 32 tube is a good starting point. Get the Hasselblad Close-Up Calculator. It works. It helps me get good exposures and simplifies selecting extension tubes/CU Lenses for the image size you are looking for.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>When this "common usage" phenomenon is then slammed on the table by statements like that of Edward's it simply results in the dumbing down of knowledge.</em></p>

<p>Language is a dynamic medium. Besides, I find it more useful to address problems with solutions, rather than quibble over terminology (or spelling). Therein lies knowledge. While not the "last word" in science and technology, Wikipedia (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography)</a> provides a better consensus than one man's opinion in "Macro Photography for Beginners".</p>