50mm lens with a tleconverter and an extension tube, has anyone tried this combination?

[sgust]

<p>I have a Sony A55 and am thinking of getting their 50mm f/1.4 lens to have a good lens for low light photography. I also like macro work, but only have the 30mm macro from Sony and would like something with a little more reach. I'm wondering if the 50mm with a quality 1.4x teleconverter and an extension tube could produce good macro results. I figure with the large aperture of the 50mm, the light loss would still be acceptable for focusing. And between the increased focal length from the teleconverter and the reduced minimum focusing distance from the extension tube the magnification aught to approach if not exceed 1:1, depending on the amount of extension tubes. Has anyone tried this setup? I'm curious how the image quality would be. how would it compare to a 100mm macro?</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>What about the Minolta 50/2.8 macro or the 100/2.8 macro. Really excellent lenses.</p>

[roy_nash]

<p>Hi Siegfried<br>

By far the best way to do near and true macro is to use automatic bellows with your lens. However these are not cheap. Extension tubes are more limited but work well with a standard lens. Even with the light loss caused by moving the lens away from the camera you should be able to focus OK. Unless you are lucky enough to have automatic tubes however you will also have to manually stop down to an appropriate f stop to achieve an acceptable depth of field. Lighting and correct exposure will require some experimentation. <br>

Using a teleconverter, won't help you get nearer to or beyond 1:1. I've tried with a 2x but I'm sure a 1.4x will be similar. If you add a teleconverter you won't be able to focus as closely on the subject. This may be an advantage for lighting in some cases but it won't give you a bigger image of the subject. <br>

Most "macro" lenses can't actually take 1:1 shots. You can get far closer with tubes or bellows. You can also take extremely close pictures if you mount your 50mm lens in reverse. You can buy cheap adaptors to do this. If you want to get closer still you can always invest in an adaptor to fit a microscope !<br>

Good luck. Hope you have fun exploring the macro world and get some great pictures.</p>

 

[roy_nash]

<p>Hi Again Siegfried<br>

Another approach you might consider if you choose to buy yourself a good macro lens is to get as close as possible and crop the image so 1:1 is achieved. You will lose a little quality of course but the images could still be very good.<br>

Also you can get pretty close using your 50mm and close up (diopter) lenses. These screw in like filters and come in different magnifications (+1. +2, +4 etc) Avoid +10 and above as these have very little depth of field to play with even at small apertures. <br>

The cheaper ones can distort at the edges, sometimes badly. The more expensive achromatic ones are pretty good these days and don't lose you too much quality. The Raynox ones are good too. Again cropping the final picture a little may help you achieve 1:1<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've never done the combination you speak of, but the old Spiratone company sold a 400mm preset lens back in the 60s and 70s which could be bought with a TelXtender (Spiratone was one of the first to market these) and an extension tube to allow close focusing. I've combined them and everything worked as well as ever.<br>

Extenders often don't work as well with normal focal length lenses, but try it and see. Unless you point it at the sun or dip it in the lake, I don't suppose it could do any harm.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I am using Marumi Achromat Supplementary lenses, sometimes also with an extension tube behind the lens, when I want a bit more magnification. The longer the focal length, the more difference they make.<br>

The essential choice is this:<br>

Tubes and/or supplemenaries decrease the working distance<br>

Teleconverters increase magnification at the same working distance<br>

The latter is better for subjects which are dificult to approach.<br>

The large aperture is irrelevant for moderate magnification macro. I use f8 or f11, manual (preset) for almost all my macro and the live view compensates for framing and focusing. (Beware of not spotting underexposures due to this!)</p>

<p> </p>

[sgust]

<p>Thanks for your responses everyone.<br /> Roy and David, the reason I'm thinking of this combination is because I want a good portrait lens with shallow depth of field, but I also want a macro that gives me a bit more room between me and my subject (most often insects) than my 30mm macro. I realize that there are setups that are better than what I'm considering, dedicated macro lens for example. But I like the idea (and the price) of having one lens that can serve double duty.<br /> Roy you said a teleconverter won't get me a bigger image of my subject. As far as I understand it they do, by magnifying the central section of the image circle. The diopter lens' might be a good option, don't they degrade image quality pretty badly though?<br /> Harold, the reason the large aperture is important to me is that I also want to use it as a portrait lens, but also it will allow me to still use autofocus with the teleconverter/extension combo ( I think?).<br /> If I understand the the technical details correctly this is how it should work. Mount a 36mm Kenko extension tube to the Sony 50mm f/1.4 lens to get a 50mm f/? lens that focuses close enough to get a 1:1.2 magnification ratio (according to http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/) then mount that to the x1.4 or x2 Sigma teleconverter to maintain the same close focusing distance while multiplying the focal length to get magnifications of either 1.19:1 with the 1.4 teleconverter or 1.7:1 magnification with the x2 teleconverter.<br /> That's all very theoretical though. And I'm curious if anyone knows if I am getting the math right, will I be able to maintain autofocus, Will the image quality be any good?<br /> I know it's a lot of questions. Thanks in advance for you help.</p>

[roy_nash]

<p>Hi Again Siegfried<br>

With regard to your point about teleconverters. Yes they do work by magnifying the image from the lens attached but they also have 3 other effects which are relevant to your original question. Firstly they reduce the amount of light passed. This means that your maximum aperture will effectively be f2 or less before you add any tubes. Adding tubes will further reduce the light you have for focusing but unless your subject is poorly lit you should be able to focus OK. Secondly and more crucially adding a teleconverter to a lens seriously alters the degree to which the lens can focus closely. When working in macro the difference is massive. I combined a 50mm lens with a 36mm tube and a 2x converter and the closest I could get was about 6 inches from the subject. Without the converter you can get much closer. By adding more tubes closer still but it may be an advantage not to get too close because there is the danger you crowd the subject or cast shadows by your equipment. Thirdly unlike the tubes a teleconverter contains glass which bends the light. A 50mm lens plus a 2x converter will rarely give you the quality of a 100mm lens. Generally the more glass you add into the equation, especially close up, the more likely it is that the image will degrade. However photography is often about compromises. You may still get great results. With regard to your worries about supplementary close up lenses, the achromatic ones are very useful. They have a big bonus that they have no affect on working aperture. Even the cheap ones can create great pictures. One last thing I should have said before about macro photography is that avoiding shake is as important as any set up. To be successful you probably also need a tripod, a macro focusing rail, and a remote shutter release. Good luck.</p>

 

[harold_gough]

<p>Just to simplify the issue of light loss: However you magnify the image (i.e. select part of it) the light "loss" is the same, quantitatively. (There is a myth that supplementary lenses do not reduce light levels). Light is not lost. It is diluted. There is so much per unit area. As you concentrate on smaller units of area (magnify) there is less total light to spread across the sensor.<br>

You do not necessarily lose quality by using a teleconverter, as the central part of the lens is usuallly rather better than the outer regions. Beware of apparent loss of resolution. Resolution (often measured as contrast) is the amount of detail per linear unit across the image. That will decrease when you magnify the image but the actual amount of detail is the same. </p>

 

[sgust]

<p>Thanks everyone taking the time to comment.<br>

I'm still undecided. But I'm thinking when I head back stateside I'm gonna visit the old brick and mortar and ask if I could try the combination out for a couple frames in store. They've always been pretty helpful, so I don't expect it'll be a problem. Between getting my hands on the actual setup and checking out the results I should be able to decide pretty quickly.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Hi Siegfried, I would try using the extension tube and the tc with your 50mm lens. I do know that the magnification result will differ depending on the order each device is mounted to your camera. I would just experiment and see which order gives you the best results: camera, ex tube, tc, lens; or camera, tc, ex tube, lens. Of course you have to read the manuals which may restrict the order of mounting. Also try using different f stops for best image quality. F 5.6 or f 8 might yield better image quality--ie sharper-- images than f 11 or f 16 due to diffraction and other technical issues. Use a tripod and a cable release or the self timer for all shots. A true macro lens is a better solution, but I am sure you already know this.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>With my Pentax, the ext tubes must be added to the lens and the 1.4 is attached to the camera body. That's the only way it will fit. Suggest trying that arrangement first. My results have been very good, however my magnification is nowhere near life size but then again that was not my intent. </p>

[scottelly]

<p>Hi Siegfried. I suggest you try a long telephoto with a long extension tube. Look for "no glass Nikon F to Sony mount adapter" on that auction site and then get this:</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK060102006650?r=FE</p>

<p>Use it with any extension tube (maybe even two extension tubes together). No, it won't be auto-focus. No, it will not be a good portrait lens, but you will spend less than $200 on your whole macro set-up.</p>

<p>You don't need to worry about the amount of light. You need depth of field. You WILL shoot with a flash. The camera will show you a preview of the exposure anyway. That's one of the advantages we have with a Sony A55. You will focus as close as you can and set the aperture to f11 or f16. Then you will set your flash to low and fire away at ISO 200 or 400 at 1/160th second. It's not difficult. You will do critical focus by moving and using the focus assist feature of the camera, but more likely you will just do what I do, which is shoot a lot. It might make sense to get a cheap flash. You can get something decent for around $50.</p>

<p>Here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675283-REG/Bower_SFD296S_SFD296S_Digital_Auto_Zoom.html</p>

<p>You'll want one of these:</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/765451-REG/Vello_HSA_CSC_Hot_Shoe_Adapter_to.html</p>

<p>Check out these set-ups for inspiration: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/780820/0</p>

<p>The Macro World forum at FredMiranda.com is very helpful.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Honestly, I don't recommend a teleconverter <em>ever</em> for macro work unless you have no other way to do it. They degrade image quality and flatness of field is poor. An extension tube is <em>always</em> a better alternative because they do not degrade image quality. With both, however, you will experience a loss in maximum aperture, but for different reasons. If you are using the camera's meter, it is usually taken into account and should not be an issue. You are always better off using a macro lens, which is designed specifically for the purpose.</p>

<p>I wrote a rather in depth <em><a href="http://scottmurphyphotography.org/macrophotography.htm">article</a> </em>on macrophotography and published it on my website. Maybe it will answer some questions for you.</p>

[sgust]

<p>I ended up getting a used Minolta 100mm/2.8 lens, but thanks for the advice. I also have some extension tubes. If I ever do get a teleconverter, I still want to try the teleconverter/extension tube/fast prime lens combination to see how it turns out.</p>