# 40 2.8 with extension tubes



## brianleighty (Sep 10, 2012)

I was just wondering if anybody has tried out the 40 2.8 with extension tubes. Given its very small design, I would think this would give a greater minimum working distance since even with the extension tubes it wouldn't stick out as far as some other lenses.

I'm shooting a wedding in a couple weeks and am not planning to rent a macro for it. I just shot a wedding on Saturday and only used the 100 IS L for a few shots of the ring so I can't really justify renting a macro just for that little. I have the 24 105 and am renting the tamron 24 70 as well in case anybody has any input on if those would work better with extension tubes (I would think not). I also have been wanting to try out the canon 35 1.4 and own the canon 35 2.0 if anybody has tried it on those as well. Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2012)

The 40/2.8 does great with a 25mm tube, mag is ~0.8x. IIRC, working distance is ~6-10", can't check exactly as I've loaned out my 25mm tube.


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 40/2.8 does great with a 25mm tube, mag is ~0.8x. IIRC, working distance is ~6-10", can't check exactly as I've loaned out my 25mm tube.


Thanks Neuro I'm assuming the 40 would work much better than the 50 1.8 that I also have stopped down?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2012)

The 40/2.8 will give a higher max mag due to the higher native mag and shorter focal length. 

Sorry, no idea on optical difference though, but I expect the 40/2.8 would give better results.


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 40/2.8 will give a higher max mag due to the higher native mag and shorter focal length.
> 
> Sorry, no idea on optical difference though, but I expect the 40/2.8 would give better results.


Thanks, well if I'm renting the 40 and I have the 50, if I have the time I might try taking a couple of shots on both and see which is better. Thanks Neuro.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2012)

The 40mm already has a hig magnification, so cropping the image might work just fine.
Here is a image of a petunia that I snapped the first day I owned the lens. I could easily crop this and still have a sharp image.


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 10, 2012)

Yeah I rented one this past weekend and it did seem to focus fairly close. Although the 35 2.0 I have is capable of focusing even closer. I'm looking for higher magnification than can be offered by the lens itself. I don't currently have any extension tubes or else I would of done some experimenting with that while I had the lens so sounds like I'm going to try out the 40 again and this time rent some extension tubes as well. Pretty much as expensive as renting a macro this time around but long term if I decide to buy it'll be cheaper and work on all my lenses.


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 11, 2012)

look at a set of the kenko extension tubes they are cheap there is a 36mm tube in that set too, i'll see if i can try it out tonight and post up for you


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> look at a set of the kenko extension tubes they are cheap there is a 36mm tube in that set too, i'll see if i can try it out tonight and post up for you


A Kenko 1.4X TC might also do the trick, and if so, would be easier to use than extension tubes and manual focus. Some can get AF with a extension tube, but figure on focusing by moving the camera towards or away from the subject by using a focus rail. Rent that as well.


----------



## infilm (Sep 11, 2012)

@Brian, I see that you have a 50 f1.8. I also have one and have used it with the Kenko extension tubes with good results. If have the $ I would say just buy the set of tubes from Kenko (about $200). If you are going to rent I would recommend going with a 12mm tube if you are shooting wedding ring macros. Hope this helps. Good luck.


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 11, 2012)

infilm said:


> @Brian, I see that you have a 50 f1.8. I also have one and have used it with the Kenko extension tubes with good results. If have the $ I would say just buy the set of tubes from Kenko (about $200). If you are going to rent I would recommend going with a 12mm tube if you are shooting wedding ring macros. Hope this helps. Good luck.



Thanks everyone. I'm renting 40 2.8 again and the Kenko extension tubes. We'll see how we go. @Mt Spokane, I have contemplated using a 1.4 TC or close up lens with the 70-200 IS II but decided to go this way based on some back and forth with Roger over at Lensrentals.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 6, 2012)

I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. Anyone else play around with this? I would like some non-cropped images posted if possible. I really want to see whats possible. It was tricky using the 25mm on the 85L this weekend, forget the 12mm, you can't get close enough. I used to use the 12 with my 50L for great ring shots but i sold the 50L.
Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. Anyone else play around with this? I would like some non-cropped images posted if possible. I really want to see whats possible. It was tricky using the 25mm on the 85L this weekend, forget the 12mm, you can't get close enough. I used to use the 12 with my 50L for great ring shots but i sold the 50L.
> Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.


With it on sale for $150, its a bargain. Now that we have the 24-70 f/4L coming which is virtually a macro with hybrid IS, and, If you are using flash setups for weddings, it might be a usable wedding lens as well.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 6, 2012)

I ordered one but I am researching it being used with tubes, kinda hard to find but i found a couple links. It looks like it just might be perfect. I sold ,y 24-70 2.8 and my 5d among others to get the 85L II and it did nicely at this weekends wedding. Anyway that said i am saying i gave up the 24-70 lens and shot the entire wedding with 2 primes and it was very good. First wedding i havent pulled the 70-200 out. If the 35F2 focusses fast i may get that for sports finish line shots but we'll see.
here is one link
http://www.andrewsgibson.com/blog/2012/08/up-close-with-canons-40mm-pancake-lens/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. ...
> Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.



Well, Bosman, since you asked so nicely... 

I grabbed a shot with the 1D X, Extension Tube EF 25 II, and EF 40mm f/2.8 'pancake'. My wife's sparkly diamond marquis with smaller marquis sapphires surrounding it is on her finger, and she's asleep, so you'll have to make due with my wedding band. It's not unblemished and new like the ones you'll be shooting, since it's been on my finger for a few months shy of 20 years. But there are only two wedding rings in the house, so this is what you're getting... 

Two shots, first is the full frame, uncropped image reduced to 800 pixles wide, second is an 800 pixel wide 100% crop. Shot at 1/40 s, f/11, ISO 400. Straight conversion with DPP, only adjustment was to the WB (I cooled it off a little - I should know better than to shoot tungsten light on a red throw pillow with AWB, the original looked a little Tolkien-esque, One Ring To Rule Them All...).

In terms of dimensions, the band measures 7/8" diameter. The shot was at the MFD of the lens, and the working distance (front element to wedding ring) was ~2.25".

Hope that helps...


----------



## Bosman (Nov 6, 2012)

Neuro, you rock! Thanks for taking the time to show me your outcome, I am very thankful. This just may be the perfect way for me to do macro shots of rings and if i want a little more in the image i could use the 12mm. This lens may get more use than for my macro stuff from the work i have seen in galleries on the web.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 9, 2012)

I got my 40mm yesterday and find myself quite impressed with the sharpness! With the 12mm extension tube it makes a nice wide macro with rings that have additional composition. For more focus on the rings being tightly cropped going with a 25mm tube is better. I am referring to this being used on a FF camera. I have not attempted it on the 1dm3 yet but will try it out soon.


----------



## brianleighty (Nov 12, 2012)

Sorry Bosman, I haven't been on here the past couple weeks so I just saw your post. Thankfully Neuro stepped in. Yeah I'm still a little up in the air about this lens for general photography. No doubt about it, it's a nice lens but perhaps it's just not my style for most shots. But for macro, now that's a totally different story.




It's not a macro replacement for sure, but for my level right now it's a great alternative. I'll probably get the 100 IS L eventually but I'm thinking one of the 70-200 models is more important at this stage. So until then, this will be my go to for macro (in combination with the 70-200 IS II with extension tubes as well.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 12, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> Sorry Bosman, I haven't been on here the past couple weeks so I just saw your post. Thankfully Neuro stepped in. Yeah I'm still a little up in the air about this lens for general photography. No doubt about it, it's a nice lens but perhaps it's just not my style for most shots. But for macro, now that's a totally different story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting. If i want tight it will be with the 25mm tube but i prefer a wider perspective adding surrounding elements so I think ill use the 12mm tube most. I may use both if the rings are stellar and I want the details of that but usually i like added interest to tell more of a story. I also often like more color in the shot so blurry or not bold colors can be pretty sweet! 
As far as macros go, i personally want to try and keep my setup simple. and the pocket-ability of the 40 with a tube is perfect! I have owned most of the best lenses and have changed my style with time but at the moment I am shooting mainly 24L and 85L. Sports however i shoot 70-200 or 24-70 but i sold the 24-70 and so if i do get another lens that needs to focus fast it will prob be a 35mm since i used that focal length when shooting finish line sports. Maybe the F2 is one. We'll see but with wedding work i want it simpler and focussed on powerful sharp primes. Sure the 24-70 is more practical and i have used the h out of it over the years with great results. The new 24-70 is stellar i hear and see from some posters but this is just the direction i am going at the moment.


----------



## brianleighty (Nov 13, 2012)

Bosman, not sure which 70-200 you should with, but the 70-200 works pretty darn well for macro shots as well. You're like me in that you like it wider, but sometimes I like tighter as well and for that scenario, the 70-200 works well. One nice thing with it being a zoom is you can actually use the zoom ring more like a focus ring to get it about where you want it and do fine adjustments with the focus ring. It's a little weird but it works pretty well.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 13, 2012)

Yes sir, i have used the 70-200 i believe it was with a 12 and a 25 on it and it worked fine. The only thing i didn't like is being steady with a heavy long lens. It does render flowers really well with a tripod or monopod too. I used a spider holster setup but attached the 2 hooks on a think tank belt on that belt i also have a bag hanging behind me. In the bag i kept my fisheye lens, color checker passport and cases of unused recharged batteries to change out. The beauty of the 40 is its small even with an extension tube and that will be in the bag instead of my fisheye lens. I sold that lens. I don't want a macro lens or at least commit to paying the money for one.


----------

