Macro Lens or Extension Tubes?

[Canis Vulpes]

If I was to consider macro photography is a serious way what is generally accepted as best?

A dedicated macro lens such as 105mm micro nikkor or extension tubes for an existing lens e.g. 105mm lens with no macro capability?

[Nogbad]

Stephen, I have the Macro 60mm Nikkor and it is a fabulous lens. I also have a set of Kenko extension tubes. The ext tubes are ok and you can get more than passable results using them but they do have limitations. I find the auto focus gets very ponderous and has trouble locking on the subject. I have used them with the Macro lens and they are OK. (See close up of Moths head in gallery)

I would like the Nikon dedicated ext tubes but they are just too pricey at the moment.

I use the Macro most of the time without the ext tubes as I find it gives the best quality image, and only consider the ext tubes if I want to get really close for some interesting detail.

Iis really personal preference but in my opinion yo cant beat the dedicated lens.

Regards Nogbad

[wolfie]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

Stephen, I have the Macro 60mm Nikkor and it is a fabulous lens. I also have a set of Kenko extension tubes. The ext tubes are ok and you can get more than passable results using them but they do have limitations. I find the auto focus gets very ponderous and has trouble locking on the subject. I have used them with the Macro lens and they are OK. (See close up of Moths head in gallery)

I would like the Nikon dedicated ext tubes but they are just too pricey at the moment.

I use the Macro most of the time without the ext tubes as I find it gives the best quality image, and only consider the ext tubes if I want to get really close for some interesting detail.

Iis really personal preference but in my opinion yo cant beat the dedicated lens.

Regards Nogbad

I agree with you almost 100%, but am not sure how you can suggest that the image is degraded in any way, when using a macro lens with tubes, especially as there is no extra glass involved.

A great deal of my macro shots are taken using either my canon 100mm or Sigma 180mm macro lens often with tubes attached, and see no difference.

I would suggest however that you go for a longer focal length than 60mm, as with tubes attached the working distance will be very restrictive.

One other point I would never consider using auto-focus especially when using a combination of macro lens and tubes.

This photo http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...500&ppuser=150

Was taken using the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens + a full set of tubes (65mm)

Harry

[Don Hoey]

Firstly I have to agree with Harry re image degradation with tubes or bellows. I have a manual focus 55mmMicro Nikkor and even at max extension ( tubes + bellows ) I have not seen any.

As for the question tubes or dedicated macro then I think it depends on what you are aiming at subject wise, and frequency of use.

A dedicated macro lens is corrected for close focussing so will give better results than tubes on your current 50mm. The downside of tubes or bellows is light loss that gets worse the greater the extension. Even though the 105 is a f2.8 lens it will not be f2.8 at max extension for 1:1 reproduction.

As for lens focal length I find the 55mm often does not give as much lens to subject distance as I would like. When I bought this lens I could not afford the 105mm or 200mm and still can't. The 105mm gets good reviews and price point is pitched midway between 60 mm and 200mm.

So a couple of questions for you.

Is the lens only for macro use. If so how important is A/F.

Are you looking at 105 for VR. If so, then its worth a read of Thom Hogans review where he notes that VR performance degrades as you get closer. By the time you are at 1:1 you would probably be on manual focus as well.

If you are looking at close up rather than macro then tubes can be used on any of your lenses. Christine ( Saphire ) has posted some great images using them.

Of course if you have a good bonus then why not consider the 85mm f2.8 PC Micro Nikkor. Far more versatile than any normal macro lens, or any other lens of similar focal length for that matter.

Don

[Christine]

I think some people just take a set of ext tubes to use if they are going out with say just a long length focal lens,and do not want to take a second lens,eg macro.I do have a set of the Kenko tubes,have only used once,with a 100-400.Not bad,they did auto focus quite well.You can take a macro type shot further away from your subject,eg butterfly,thereby less likley to scare the subject away.

[walwyn]

I just clip the Raynox DCR-250 on and move in close:

http://static.flickr.com/136/326572169_4d59a849d6_o.jpg

I always found tubes just made the handling more difficult, and I wouldn't want to think about bellows without a tripod.

[robski]

I think your find a true macro lens is tuned to give a flatter field of focus. If the lens was square onto a sheet of paper with text. The whole frame should be in focus at the same time. Standard lens tend to suffer some curvature in the field of focus. When the centre of the frame is in focus the edge of frame maybe out of focus. Then when you adjust to get the edge in focus the centre goes out of focus. With such shallow DOF at 1:1 this maybe important dependant on the subject matter.

I have just looked at spec sheet for my 100mm f2.8 macro. It says that f2.8 is when the lens is focused to infinity and you lose 2 stops of light when at 1:1 magnification.

I should think tubes and bellows are idea for studio setup but to lose infinity focusing for a walk about lens would be a pain. One minute you could be taking a closeup shot of an insect the next subject could be 30 feet away.

I went for a macro lens as the best closeup I could get with my other lens was 1:4. I doubt I will do much 1:1 work but it will handy for 1:2 or 1:3 without any fiddling around.

[gordon g]

If you are going to do a lot of macro work then I would definately go for a macro lens. (And then perhaps a focussing rail to put on your tripod also - that way you can set the desired magnification on the lens and move the whole camera back and forth to get the plane of focus where you want it).
If it's only going to be an occasional thing, either tubes to shorten the minimum focus distance on an existing lens, or close-up filters, might be acceptable (and a lot cheaper!)

I used filters briefly before opting for a dedictated lens, initally the sigma 105mm, but I now use the tamron 180mm to get a better distance for insects etc.

[blackmarlin]

Stephen,
Try the Sigma 105 macro lens. I've just bought one for my D70S outfit and I must admit I'm very happy with the set up. Early days yet though as I've only had the lens for a week but I have started getting some reasonable results.

Alan

[Leif]

Like everyone else I recommend a macro lens rather than extension tubes.

Although tubes can work well on a prime, they are a right royal pain, as you end up continually having to change tubes to get the desired magnification. And of course you also expose the mirror chamber to dust when changing the tubes.

An alternative is to use a 2 element diopter on a lens. These even work well on zoom lenses which is not always the case with ext. tubes. I tried a Nikon 3T on a 75-150mm zoom and the results were very good indeed, at least when well stopped down (F8 - F16). If you want to shoot wide open, at F4 say, then a diopter is not really the best choice, as the image quality may well be degraded more than is desirable, especially towards the edges. Both Nikon and Canon produce good 2 element ones, but don't even think about using a 1 element lens.

To be honest in your position a Tamron 90mm macro, or a Nikon 105mm macro, would be best. I'm not convinced it is worth buying a Nikon 105mm macro lens as the Tamron is supposed to be as good if not better optically.