50/1.2L with X-Tube or CU Lens for Flowers?

[JumboShrimp]

I will be receiving my 50/1.2L pretty soon and want to experiment with extreme close-ups of flowers at f/1.2. I have the option of using an extension tube or one of Canon's 2-element close-up lenses. If you have any experience using one or both of these methods, what are your impressions and the differences (if any) in the effects of each? For instance, does the bokeh change with the addition of the CU lens? (Any specific images would be appreciated.)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When you get really close, there is almost no depth of field, at f/1.2 you'd likely just have a blur. Macro users find that even very small apertures are marginal.

If you have extension tubes, you can try them. Don't waste money on high quality closeup lenses until you're sure you want to go there.
The cheapest way to try is to get a lens reversing ring, they only cost a few dollars. Normally, I wouldn't recommend one for a EF lens, since you can't stop the lens down, but for $10 or less, they will do what you want. They will also give a excellent image.
Here is one with a 72mm thread for $5.97. Better yet, get 77mm or larger and use step down rings so you can adapt to larger lenses. (I did not see one larger than 77mm)
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Reverse-Adapter-Camera-filter/dp/B0054ENY64/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1386727495&sr=8-3-fkmr1&keywords=canon+ef+reverse+ring+72mm

 

[Loswr]

When you get really close, there is almost no depth of field, at f/1.2 you'd likely just have a blur. Macro users find that even very small apertures are marginal.

+1

You'll want to stop down, with high mag even f/11 or narrower is very thin DoF. But you did say 'experiment', so try f/1.2...

Regarding extension tubes vs. close up lenses, both have pluses and minuses. Both cost IQ, tubes and good CU lenses (like Canon's double element 500D and 250D) are similar, cheap CU lenses are worse. Tubes cost you some light, CU lenses don't. Tubes fit any lens, CU lenses are sized for filter threads (you can use step up rings).

The biggest difference is the lenses where each is effective. Tubes give increased mag inversely proportional to focal length (shorter FL means more mag increase), whereas CU lenses increase mag (in part) based on a direct proportion to FL (and in part based on the lens' minimum focus distance). As a general rule of thumb, shorter than 70mm you want a tube, 70-100mm either will do, and longer than 100mm you want a CU lens (assuming your goal is higher mag - I use a 25mm tube with my 600/4 to get a closer MFD, 12' vs the native 15').

With a 50mm lens, tubes are the way to go. A 500D can actually reduce the max magnification of a 50mm lens instead of increasing it.

 

[Menace]

Here one with my 50L: f2.0, 1/2500, ISO 100 hand held at the local botanical hot house gardens.

 

[mwh1964]

Congrats with your new lens. Had that lens and really regret having to sell it as I thought the f1.4 would cut it for a lot less funds. Well it doesn't. That f1.2 is addictive however not for close up shots as others have pointed out. If you want close up with no hassle I recommend 100L or the even cheaper USM model or you could try the 50 f2.5 which can be had for 200-250 used or refurbished of course only giving you 1/2 life size magnification. Good luck experimenting with that f1.2.

 

[tolusina]

Consider also, tethered focus stacking on a tripod. Obviously only good for stationary subjects.