Advice: extension tubes Macro

[candyman]

I would like to extend my canon 100L Macro with extension tubes.
I have a few options but like to hear what option you would choose and why:
1. Canon 5D MK III + 100L+canon 12mm+canon 25mm
2. Canon 5D MK III + 100L+kenko 12mm+kenko 20mm+kenko 36mm
3. Canon 7D + 100L+canon 12mm+canon 25mm
4. Canon 7D + 100L+kenko 12mm+kenko 20mm+kenko 36mm
Of course I can use extension tubes also single instead of stacked

Price Canon vs Kenko tubeset is similar: around 200 euro

Thanks

 

[Loswr]

Is the air in the Canon tubes better than the air in the Kenko tubes? For most applications, the Kenko tubes are just fine (the only reason I went with Canon tubes is that my main use is to reduce the MFD of a supertele, and I wanted to be sure of the mount strength - not an issue of concern for macro lenses).

 

[jdramirez]

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

 

[jdramirez]

Is the air in the Canon tubes better than the air in the Kenko tubes? For most applications, the Kenko tubes are just fine (the only reason I went with Canon tubes is that my main use is to reduce the MFD of a supertele, and I wanted to be sure of the mount strength - not an issue of concern for macro lenses).

I was thinking the same thing about the air, but I did get some extension tubes that wouldn't allow me to change the aperture... so if that was an issue regarding the consistency of the connection.

 

[candyman]

Is the air in the Canon tubes better than the air in the Kenko tubes? For most applications, the Kenko tubes are just fine (the only reason I went with Canon tubes is that my main use is to reduce the MFD of a supertele, and I wanted to be sure of the mount strength - not an issue of concern for macro lenses).

See, that was what I was thinking. Why buying Canon? Build quality. But not for a relative light lens as 100L. Thanks

 

[candyman]

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

 

[schill]

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

I'm a bit confused by the mfd for this lens with the extension tubes.

From the manual, mfd with no extension tubes is 300mm (magnification 1.00).

With a 12mm tube, it's 302mm (magnification 1.17).
With a 25mm tube, it's 307mm (magnification 1.37).

So they don't reduce the mfd at all, just increase the magnification. Is this the normal way macro lenses work? It's been too long since I used extension tubes on mine.

 

[lion rock]

I used all three Kenko tubes and the 100mmL IS to take the attached picture. The distance was under three inches.
Focusing is not terribly easy, just takes a steady tripod and a bit of patience.
-r

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

 

[jdramirez]

I used all three Kenko tubes and the 100mmL IS to take the attached picture. The distance was under three inches.
Focusing is not terribly easy, just takes a steady tripod and a bit of patience.
-r

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

what exactly am I looking at?

 

[lol]

That image looks like a butterfly wing to me.

Be aware of the difference between minimum focus distance, and working distance. MFD is from sensor to subject. Working distance is from lens front to subject. Do you care about either anyway if you can get the magnification?

Personally if I need a small boost in magnification I'd reach for a teleconverter first. A 1.4x wouldn't usually impact the quality significantly and you don't have to worry about limited focus ranges as you do with extension tubes or "close up filters".

 

[candyman]

I used all three Kenko tubes and the 100mmL IS to take the attached picture. The distance was under three inches.
Focusing is not terribly easy, just takes a steady tripod and a bit of patience.
-r

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

what exactly am I looking at?

Middle East excavation site in progress.
What I do is I take photographs to point the exact position of artifacts in relation to eachother and the site (don't necessarily need tubes for that).
I further take closeup photographs of artifacts that are scuffed, broken - likes pieces of a mosaic floor that look the same - in order to get clues for 'puzzling'. Pieces are like 1 cm and very often part of floors of 3 square meter and larger

 

[schill]

That image looks like a butterfly wing to me.

Be aware of the difference between minimum focus distance, and working distance. MFD is from sensor to subject. Working distance is from lens front to subject. Do you care about either anyway if you can get the magnification?

Personally if I need a small boost in magnification I'd reach for a teleconverter first. A 1.4x wouldn't usually impact the quality significantly and you don't have to worry about limited focus ranges as you do with extension tubes or "close up filters".

Just a reminder that the Canon teleconverters will not work with the macro lenses.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would like to extend my canon 100L Macro with extension tubes.
I have a few options but like to hear what option you would choose and why:
1. Canon 5D MK III + 100L+canon 12mm+canon 25mm
2. Canon 5D MK III + 100L+kenko 12mm+kenko 20mm+kenko 36mm
3. Canon 7D + 100L+canon 12mm+canon 25mm
4. Canon 7D + 100L+kenko 12mm+kenko 20mm+kenko 36mm
Of course I can use extension tubes also single instead of stacked

Price Canon vs Kenko tubeset is similar: around 200 euro

Thanks

Kenko is excellent, get a 3 piece set and you will be fine. I have a cheap plastic set that works just fine for smaller lenses. I've had Canon, Kenko, and now a cheapie plastic set, all worked equally well for me. I would not buy the cheap set, they came with a used camera and since I use them maybe once a year, I sold the Canon and Kenko tubes and kept the cheap ones.
You want to be sure its the type of set that has the electrical contacts, there are low cost EF tubes without contacts, and then its a issue to focus or set the aperture.

The electrical contacts go straight thru to the lens contacts, no electronics. This means the camera will not know the tubes are there, its like you are hooked directly to the lens.

 

[photonius]

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

I'm a bit confused by the mfd for this lens with the extension tubes.

From the manual, mfd with no extension tubes is 300mm (magnification 1.00).

With a 12mm tube, it's 302mm (magnification 1.17).
With a 25mm tube, it's 307mm (magnification 1.37).

So they don't reduce the mfd at all, just increase the magnification. Is this the normal way macro lenses work? It's been too long since I used extension tubes on mine.

The minimal working distance will slowly decrease, but after around 1:1 magnification, the minimal focus distance will increase again due to the increased distance of the extension tubes. Think about the single thin lens formula (see e.g., http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Close-up+%26+Macro), as the object gets closer and closer to the camera (lens), the lens moves further and further from the sensor (i.e. projected image). At 1:1 a 50mm lens is 100mm from the sensor and 100mm from the object. Increasing magnification further, the situation now simply reverses, i.e. the lens moves further and further away from the senor, while the object creeps closer to the lens. Once the object is 50mm from the lens (the focal length), the image (sensor) has to be at infinity from the lens.

 

[jdramirez]

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

I'm a bit confused by the mfd for this lens with the extension tubes.

From the manual, mfd with no extension tubes is 300mm (magnification 1.00).

With a 12mm tube, it's 302mm (magnification 1.17).
With a 25mm tube, it's 307mm (magnification 1.37).

So they don't reduce the mfd at all, just increase the magnification. Is this the normal way macro lenses work? It's been too long since I used extension tubes on mine.

The minimal working distance will slowly decrease, but after around 1:1 magnification, the minimal focus distance will increase again due to the increased distance of the extension tubes. Think about the single thin lens formula (see e.g., http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Close-up+%26+Macro), as the object gets closer and closer to the camera (lens), the lens moves further and further from the sensor (i.e. projected image). At 1:1 a 50mm lens is 100mm from the sensor and 100mm from the object. Increasing magnification further, the situation now simply reverses, i.e. the lens moves further and further away from the senor, while the object creeps closer to the lens. Once the object is 50mm from the lens (the focal length), the image (sensor) has to be at infinity from the lens.

do we ever get to divide by pi?

 

[2n10]

I don't have an opinion on what you should get, but I'm curious, why do you need/ wan't to get so close?

I guess the ext tubes make in general more sense on those lenses where mfd is less close than my macro lens
I just find the mfd of 1ft (0.3m) not close enough for archeologic artifacts

I'm a bit confused by the mfd for this lens with the extension tubes.

From the manual, mfd with no extension tubes is 300mm (magnification 1.00).

With a 12mm tube, it's 302mm (magnification 1.17).
With a 25mm tube, it's 307mm (magnification 1.37).

So they don't reduce the mfd at all, just increase the magnification. Is this the normal way macro lenses work? It's been too long since I used extension tubes on mine.

The minimal working distance will slowly decrease, but after around 1:1 magnification, the minimal focus distance will increase again due to the increased distance of the extension tubes. Think about the single thin lens formula (see e.g., http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Close-up+%26+Macro), as the object gets closer and closer to the camera (lens), the lens moves further and further from the sensor (i.e. projected image). At 1:1 a 50mm lens is 100mm from the sensor and 100mm from the object. Increasing magnification further, the situation now simply reverses, i.e. the lens moves further and further away from the senor, while the object creeps closer to the lens. Once the object is 50mm from the lens (the focal length), the image (sensor) has to be at infinity from the lens.

do we ever get to divide by pi?

ROFLMAO.

 

[danski0224]

Just a reminder that the Canon teleconverters will not work with the macro lenses.

The 100mm macro may not work with a Canon teleconverter, but the 180mm macro does.

 

[drjlo]

"Vivitar" (same as "Pro Optic") extension tube set (13, 21, and 31 mm set) is built like a tank and has worked perfectly,all for $62.90. No need to pay premium for Canon air IME.

http://www.adorama.com/VVEXTC.html

 

[AudioGlenn]

I use the Kenko tubes. (~$150 from eBay I believe). They work great.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

"Vivitar" (same as "Pro Optic") extension tube set (13, 21, and 31 mm set) is built like a tank and has worked perfectly,all for $62.90. No need to pay premium for Canon air IME.

http://www.adorama.com/VVEXTC.html

Same cheap plastic ones as I have. They work fine for occasional use, but for someone using them as part of his job like the OP is, I'd go for metal. They do have a weakness, the mounts spring open with a larger lens on them, and that makes the top and bottom go out of focus, since the lens basically tilts.