# Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.

SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$. 

Lenses:

100 2.8
100L 2.8
180L 3.5

or, I could go with an extension tube ---what are your thoughts on extension tubes? They are a fairly cheap fix which would get me in a bit closer, and I'd be able to use those on all my longer lenses. 

Another option is the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87494-REG/Canon_2822A001_58mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

That one in particular is would fit my 85 1.8 --- its the cheapest option by far, but, again I have to wonder if that's enough. Do I need the versatility of the extension tube? Or, should I bag all of those ideas and snag one of the above mentioned lenses (I see the 180 macro used all the time on B&H...and I have heard that the 100L is also good for portraits...but, with a 85 1.8 and the 70-200, would I really use a 100 macro for portraits???????)

Again, it's not like I plan on diving into the insect world (yeah, of course once I can I probably will, but thats not the main idea here). Pretty much just wanting a way to get tighter shots of wedding rings, and looking to do so without spending an arm and a leg (I'd much rather snag a 135L than a macro lens..)

On the other end of things...I am considering a 2x teleconverter too. I have heard much more about those though...


----------



## rang (Apr 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.
> 
> SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$.
> 
> ...



I've used the 500D extensively and I've also used extreme setups with multiple tubes sets and TC's on focusing rails etc. etc. with and without the 500D added to the optical train. 

If you want to take an initial step into some nice macro work...get it...the 500D. it is color corrected and very sharp and it is much easier to carry around with you with any other glass. So when the opportunity comes up you can get that macro shot. However I would not get the 500D in 58mm size. If your eventual goal is to acquire L glass the majority of the filter sizes would be 77mm. There are a few exceptions but that would be addressed by inexpensive step-up or step-down rings.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

rang said:


> If your eventual goal is to acquire L glass the majority of the filter sizes would be 77mm. There are a few exceptions but that would be addressed by inexpensive step-up or step-down rings.



Most of my glass is L...only exception is the 2 primes. I have the 70-200 2.8 (non-IS), 24-70 v1, and 16-35L...

77mm is the filter thread on both the 70-200 and the 24-70, but, I am also considering upgrading 1 or both to the newer versions...which means larger filter thread... (also thinking about the 135, which is 72 mm)

How bad does the vignetting get with step down rings?


----------



## robbymack (Apr 27, 2013)

For the price it's tough to beat extension tubes. Kenkos are nice, you get af, and only $200. A little more than the close up filter you're looking at but at least then you can use them on all your lenses vs just the ones with the same filter size. I get very good results with my 70-200 f4 IS and 85 1.8 with extension tubes. I prefer the 85 most of the time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 27, 2013)

Buying expensive attachments will result in a frustrating experience if you just want closeup images. There are a ton of third party Macro lenses, and the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM is very good as well, all for a affordable price. You also get autofocus, but its only reliable in the L for extreme closeups.

The benefit of the 100L is that you generally don't need a big expensive setup to get reasonably good images. I'm happy with those I get while out walking around.

Here are some images taken with my 100L handheld while I was out walking around. I took about 3 or 4 shots and all were good.
Aphids on our Honeysuckle vine:







Robin Nest on some boards leaned up against the kids playhouse.






A few days later, hatchlings:


----------



## HeavenHell (Apr 27, 2013)

Get a macro lens, you won't regret it. Your biggest decision is whether to go with IS or not. Canon, Sigma and Tamron all manufacture very good macro lenses. You can get tack sharp photos from any of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2013)

I've used tubes and close-up lenses, and I have the 100 L Macro. All have pluses and minuses. 

Tubes: work best with short focal lengths (added mag is focal length / tube length), no optics so no direct effect on IQ, some lost light (autoexposure compensates). The 40/2.8 with a 25mm tube works quite well. 

Close-up lenses: work best with tele lenses (70-100mm is 'break even' between tubes and close-up lenses), no light loss, fixed working distance (front element to subject is 50cm with 500D, 25cm with 250D), slight optical decrement (but it was hard for me to distinguish the 100 L from the 500D on a 70-200 II in terms of IQ)

Macro lens: best IQ, most flexibility, most expensive


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

TY for the responses..

attached is one of my ring shots...as you can see, it's not the tight shot that I really want. 

I am someone that is willing to shell out the dough for the needed lens, but this one is hard because it really has such a limited use (one that I can conceivably accomplish with my current setup but I will have to crop).

I was considering that smaller filter one so i can push DOF ---but...if I went with the extension tube I would be able to use that with the 85 and the 70-200? What happens with the DOF at 2.8 (both for the extension tube and the 500d, either size?)

Edit ---note, I am looking to do handheld, not tripod mounted. I have a good tripod, but that generally stays in the trunk for weddings.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've used tubes and close-up lenses, and I have the 100 L Macro. All have pluses and minuses.
> 
> Tubes: work best with short focal lengths (added mag is focal length / tube length), no optics so no direct effect on IQ, some lost light (autoexposure compensates). The 40/2.8 with a 25mm tube works quite well.
> 
> ...



If I am reading this right then the tube would work nice with my 50 mm 1.4? If I was thinking I'd get more into intensive macro work I'd shell out the dough for the 100L...but, if I go that route then I say bye bye to the lens I really want, the 135L...and so far in searching I have not seen enough reasons to say the 100L would replace anything I currently have for portraits....(where the 135L has that ohhh baby that's special look)


----------



## TexasBadger (Apr 27, 2013)

I went the extension tube route. Works great for the occasional use it gets. I love the fact that the image is not degraded.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> If I am reading this right then the tube would work nice with my 50 mm 1.4?



A 25mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.53x - 0.68x mag at 4.33" - 3.25" working distance. A 12mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.24x - 0.39x mag at 8.9" - 5.6" working distance.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

here's another...again...just looking to get a weee bit closer


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 27, 2013)

A real macro lens will give the highest quality results, but the differences can be subtle. For the difference in money it's probably not worth it for most shooters.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> A real macro lens will give the highest quality results, but the differences can be subtle. For the difference in money it's probably not worth it for most shooters.



That's the crux of the issue right there. 100 2.8 used is $400. Tubes or attachments are half that cost. For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial? (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)



neuroanatomist said:


> A 25mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.53x - 0.68x mag at 4.33" - 3.25" working distance. A 12mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.24x - 0.39x mag at 8.9" - 5.6" working distance.



a kenko tube set is $200 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html

12mm tube from canon is a very reasonable $85, the 25mm canon is $140.... I wish my local shops were a little bigger and carried this stuff so i could go there and play...

+ side...b&h has a good return policy...lol


----------



## kentandersen (Apr 27, 2013)

If in doubt, then go for makro extension tubes. 

I use it with a 135L and a 24-105L. And I am very satisfied with the result. 

It is the cheapest way to start testing out makro.




say cheeese by andersen_kent, on Flickr


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 27, 2013)

Proper dedicated macro.

Filters are rubbish, reversing rings lose electronuc control, extension tubes stretch lenses betond their specification.

Decent macros aren't necessarily all that expensive and feature a proper magnification scale, high corner to corner resolution, very low field curvature etc etc.

Canons ancient slow noisy 50mm f2.5 is still optically a goodie and at a bargain price.

Sigma do a 50mm f2.8 macro which is also nice, and modestly priced.

I currently have the sigma 70mm f2.8 which at the time of buying had the highest imatests of any lens for the canon system, was also good on my eos 3 and had a good usable aperture range (grrrrreat up to f11, very very good at f16)

I don't bother with IS, particularly for macro, tripd and manfrotto 454 all the way!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> That's the crux of the issue right there. 100 2.8 used is $400. Tubes or attachments are half that cost. For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial? (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)



Your clients likely won't notice an IQ difference. You might not, even. What you _will_ notice is the difference in convenience. You posted two examples (rings with box and rings on stick) - you'd need a different combo of tube(s) + lens for a tightly framed shot of each (less mag to include the box). The 100/2.8 (or any true macro lens) gives you the flexibility to focus from infinity to 1:1, so you can get the framing you want in minimum time. So it may come down to whether or not you can count in having time during the wedding shoot to muck about with tubes, or not. After all...time is money.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 27, 2013)

To my way of thinking, if you are dealing with moving subjects (live insects, ec) or handheld, the 100L is the clear best choice. If you are dealing with static objects, out comes the tripod... IS is not needed, and you have all the time you want to make your shot using whatever techology suits your fancy.


----------



## Frodo (Apr 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So it may come down to whether or not you can count in having time during the wedding shoot to muck about with tubes, or not. After all...time is money.



Neuro is right with mucking about. I have a 50/2.5 macro with lifesize converter, a 250D closeup lens and an EF25mm extension tube.

I would not recommend tubes for what you want. The process would be:
- remove existing lens
- attach tube
- attach lens to front of tube
- take photo
- remove lens
- remove tube
- replace lens

I use the tube on my 200/2.8 when taking photos of flighty subjects.

For most convenience would be the 250D closeup lens. Assuming you are shooting the 85, you simply need to screw it onto the front. This will give you between 1/3 and 1/2 life size, which is fine for wedding rings. This will give you sufficient working distance. The closeup lens could stay in your pocket. Quality of the Canon produce is absolutely fine for your purposes, not "rubbish" as claimed by another poster. I would get one to suit the lens you will use most often and not get a larger (and much more expensive) closeup lens with step-up ring. 

Next option would be a dedicated macro lens. The 50/2.5 would be fine for your purpose, even though it only goes down to 1/2 lifesize. Advantages: cheap and relatively small - you want to minimise gear that you carry around.

The 100/2.8 macro is a little more expensive and goes to lifesize, but is much bigger. You then have 50, 85, 100, 135 and 70-200 which is quite a focal length overlap for someone who will need to carry gear around.

I've done a few weddings. The key is to be fleet on your feet and not be encumbered with gear. Hence, my suggestions.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> To my way of thinking, if you are dealing with moving subjects (live insects, ec) or handheld, the 100L is the clear best choice. If you are dealing with static objects, out comes the tripod... IS is not needed, and you have all the time you want to make your shot using whatever techology suits your fancy.



no moving subjects...this would be primarily for wedding rings...looking to be handheld too. I don't bring out the tripod for weddings..


----------



## zim (Apr 27, 2013)

You may want to consider Raynox DCR-150, cheep as chips (I got the 250 just for fun and would be too much macro for what you want) it’s a simple clip-on that would seem ideal in a wedding environment for just one shot, no messing about, very quick to use. Not sure if it’s up to pro requirements but I think it’s surprisingly good for the price.


----------



## chauncey (Apr 27, 2013)

> I will notice it, but will my clients?)


That, my friend, is a dissappointing statement coming from a professional. You're saying less than my best is good enough for them.


> Filters are rubbish, reversing rings lose electronuc control, extension tubes stretch lenses betond their specification.


Heed Paul's wisdom. I use a 180 macro and the only time it's off my 1DsIII is when a 300 2.8 is mounted on it.
That lens is excellent for much more than macro work...takes great portraits.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

Frodo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So it may come down to whether or not you can count in having time during the wedding shoot to muck about with tubes, or not. After all...time is money.
> ...



Look in the quote for reply


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2013)

chauncey said:


> > I will notice it, but will my clients?)
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is a dissappointing statement coming from a professional. You're saying less than my best is good enough for them.
> ...



It's not that I don't want to offer my best to my clients by any means... the reality is that for most common folk, the minutia of detail we deliberate over is something most won't see. My budget this year isn't that large and am trying to squeeze in as many upgrades as I can. My focus is for sure going to be getting the best I possibly can of course, but for this issue...ring shots...it's going to be 2-10 shots (10 is even stretching it!). If I am shelling out over $500 on any items now, it;s going to be on the 70-200 v2 (having IS on my longer lens will give me greater SS freedom and increase the keeper rate ---and that';s a focal range that will be used all day! Or, the 135L 2.0, which would also get lots of use at the ceremony and the receptions (not to mention it being fantastic for portraits. finding a macro option for ring shots accounts for like less than 1% of the wedding, and really has no other use for me at this stage. (if I were to do more commercial work, product shots, etc, etc, a dedicated good quality macro would be a no brainer. But...for the need I am trying to fill...do I compromise upgrades in other areas that will have a greater impact on the entire wedding...or blow the wad on glass that will sit in the bag 99.99% of the time?

"You're saying less than my best is good enough for them."..... I'm not saying that at all, just trying to fill needs in my kit in the best way I can with the budget I have


----------



## Surfwooder (Apr 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.
> 
> SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$.
> 
> ...


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 27, 2013)

I took this quick picture with a nifty fifty using 12mm Kenko extension tube on a crop camera to show you what magnification you can get. It is a nickel in case that is not obvious. Only PP was to scale it down for the web.

For occasional close ups the tubes will be much better choice then a dedicated macro lens since you can use any of your lenses. And if you put something like the nifty fifty then you can have the tubs attached to it all the time.


----------



## marcel (Apr 27, 2013)

In macro photography the problem is the distance between the lens and the subject. This is my last work for a make up tutorial: 

Pentacon 500 5.6 MC video

And a picture i take for reference for the client.


----------



## greger (Apr 28, 2013)

I tried the Kenko set of 3 Extension tubes and found they dropped flakes of black on the counter. I don't think I held my camera up so they didn't fall into my camera. $235.99 for a set of 3. You can use 1,2 or all 3 at once. A year later I bought a Canon 100 2.8 IS USM Macro lens with the Instant Rebate for $1,019.99. I got pics I would have never gotten
with Extension Tubes. I handheld the camera up close to a little flower looking through the view finder from a distance. I should have tried live view. I got better results with the lens than with extension tubes. Go to your favourite camera store and ask to try both the tubes and the Canon 100 2.8 IS Macro lens. Take rings for the test, just like you shoot for customers. Then go home and compare the images on your computer. I think this will help you choose the lens over the tubes. Personally I think the lens gets better pics than the tubes.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 28, 2013)

OK...maye it's time to narrow things down and just cross of things from the list, while adding a few things

Lenses:

50mm 2.5
100 2.8 macro usm
100L 2.8 (cost is too high, overlapping focal length)
180L 3.5 (High cost, overlaps with 70-200, unless I can see some portrait examples taken that beat out the 70-200, the cost outweighs the need)

Other 

tubes
close-up lens filters

If L quality glass is crossed off the list...how do tubes or filters stack up against the cheaper lenses? It's process of elimination time!

PS - mind you, if I take one of the cheaper options (tubes or filters) and end up digging macro work and want to take it a step further, it's not like I can't step into one of the higher quality lenses --- lol... kind of like doing a wine tasting, if I like I can always buy a bottle...


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Other
> 
> tubes
> close-up lens filters
> ...



Think of the close-up lens filter the same as an extender, it enlarges the image, but the trade off is lower IQ.

With the tubes you can try all your existing lenses to see which one produces the image that you like. If you don't like the results you can always sell the tubes, but since you are taking very few pictures that need the close ups, that is the cheapest way to go, and it will produce very good results. After all it is not like a picture of rings will ever be enlarged to a 36x24 size.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Apr 28, 2013)

I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 29, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.



Love the images!!!! It made me go see what the cost of sigma is...and uggg...it's $969, $769 with rebate...If I was in ---I am gonna start doing a lot more macro mode then I'd have no problem dropping that kind of $$$ (in fact...I'd be asking to see more images from this sigma, and more from the canon 100L...and 180L because I'd want the very best tool for the job). But as of now, my resources have to go to places that give more of an impact to my overall needs. I'd like to solve this without spending much...hence why tubes or close-ups seem to be winning in my mind. 

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?



Cropping increases perceived noise (for a given output size), and costs you MP. A close-up lens reduces IQ, although slightly - the teleconverter analogy above was a good one. A tube doesn't directly decrease IQ at all - it's just filled with air. Yes, it 'stretches a lens beyond its specification' by reducing both the minimum focus distance and the maximum focus distance. That doesn't affect IQ. However, since you're in effect enlarging a central portion of the image circle to fill the frame, lens flaws are magnified (e.g., spherical aberration, etc.). 

So, basically with either a close up lens or a tube, the better the IQ of the lens it's used with, the less you'll notice a decrement in IQ. I use a 25mm tube with my 600/4 (not for 'macro' since it only adds 0.04x mag, but so I get a 3' closer MFD), and there's no discernible IQ loss.


----------



## eyeland (Apr 29, 2013)

Close-up filters are fun to play with, but the cheap ones are really terrible IQ wise, and the proper ones are so relatively expensive that I chose to get some cheap tubes and save for a decent macro/portrait lens. (Sold my Sigma 70-300APO super macro seeing as it was much worse than the cheapest +10 filter on my old nifty fifty.
Still, the cheap filters are fun to play with and always fits in a pocket, whereas (as already stated) the tubes takes a little more care and patience to use.
I have only tried the cheapest filters and they are so soft that I only really found them usable for playful abstract stuff (which CAN have its merit  actually sold a print of the attached close-up filter experiment for the same price as the print+the filter  ) 

handheld Rebel 350D + 50mm 1.8 @1.8 + cheap closeup filter + 10 and a dying flower in the street


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 29, 2013)

Try m42 Flektogon 35mm. Not sure if IQ is enough for u tough. Would just be a really really cheap way n(50$?) to check how much u are into macro photography. some samples i did on APS-C (minimum focus distance is 16cm with the lens. im using 2.8 zebra one). oh and its a nice lens anyway XD

http://www.digitalrev.com/album?id=10708849

mostly wide open 2.8 cuz no flash hence shallow dof. and im not a photographer bear in mind  mostly wide open 2.8 cuz no flash hence shallow dof. bad post processing too


----------



## CalBoy87 (Apr 29, 2013)

Another option you may consider is to get Nikon or OM adapter and get some older macro lenses like Nikkor 55/3.5 or 50/2.8 or some Zuiko OM 50/3.5. I used them on 5D and really love the results, most of them are below 100 USD on eBay with additional 10-15 USD for adapter. Here is link to the last 3 I took with Nikkor 55/3.5 on 5DMKII: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157633362426637/


----------



## docholliday (Apr 29, 2013)

When I shot weddings...70-200/2.8L IS with Tube 25 for rings if I was too lazy (or busy) to get the 100/2.8 USM with ringlight out. Just hold a flash off to the side for some modeling (that's what the assistant is for) and it'll get you in for perfect full-frame rings.


----------



## caMARYnon (Apr 29, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.
> 
> SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$.
> 
> ...



Here is my macro experience:

2 years ago I wanted 100 non L macro but in that moment here wasn't available so I bought 100L. I used 100L for about 8 month and after that I sold it because I thought (and I think) the L is too expensive for my needs and the IS is useless for me - in macro I always use flash. I bought and tried close-up filters (not 500D or 250D but kenko AC +3), 25mm extension tube and all combinations of extube-kenko-teleconverter 1.4x mounted on 70-200. The best results was from extube + 40 pancake + kenko or only extube+40 pancake.
2 month ago I bought 100 non L and I think this is the best and the final solution for my macro needs and all the money I spend on extube and filters are lost.


----------



## Eimajm (Apr 29, 2013)

I can't see that anyone has suggested reverse-mounting your 50mm. 
Pick up a cheap adaptor for a few ££ / $$, I've seen some teriffic shots using this method.

Check this photo out, taken with a reverse mounted 50mm with extention tubes, though you probably wont need this much magnification.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/8688094222/#in/photostream


----------



## chauncey (Apr 29, 2013)

It all kinda boils down to consistency...
it is always possible to take an occasional great image using inferior gear but, it's a lot easier to consistently do it using superior gear.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 29, 2013)

I was going to suggest like someone else did, get yourself a M42 lens of some description.

I have a Helios 44M 58mm f2.0 which I've gotten great results with using an extension tube. I imagine a 24mm will be enough but mostly they come as a pack of three when you get them used off ebay (12, 24 and 36).

I paid £10 for the lens in mint condition, £8 for a fotodiox adapter (worth it over the cheap chinese adapters, you can find it on amazon) and £2.50 for the extension tubes. Google tells me that is $32.

The Helios is also an incredibly characterful lens on its own with the famous swirly bokeh, the later versions of it don't have as much swirl as the earlier versions. They are pretty small so if you pop the whole set up in the bag it will be much less faff than changing extension tubes on your normal lenses, it costs less than modern extension tubes and I quite like having a manual aperture ring on lenses for close ups. However, there is obviously no AF and using a 36mm tube the difference where focus is shifts about 2cm between near and infinity on the lens so focusing will be done by your feet an framing will be a bit more challenging. With a shorter extension ring it might be a bit easier and then just crop a little in post if needed


----------



## KyleSTL (Apr 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > That's the crux of the issue right there. 100 2.8 used is $400. Tubes or attachments are half that cost. For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial? (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)
> ...



+1

Enjoy the added flexibility that my two extension tubes (Canon EF12 and EF12II) give me with all my lenses, however, having to take them on and off with varying focal distances is a pain. Additionally, I have noticed that AF is affected when using ETs (slightly slower, sometimes hunts). I would really like a dedicated macro, for reasons of convenience alone. I can't argue with the price I paid for the ETs (one was free after I sold the TC that came with it - guy had no idea what he was selling, and the other was only $29).


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Apr 29, 2013)

I have the non OS version. I got mine used on eBay in mint condition for only around $300. Here's one on eBay http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?index=0&sbk=1&nav=SEARCH&itemId=200919107100


Chuck Alaimo said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.
> ...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 30, 2013)

Time to get this back on track ---repeating a question:

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

I'd love to hear more thoughts and see more images taken with tubes and close-ups. Because right now, the general consensus is to break my budget..

So, I will layout my general for the year gear plan so you can get a better idea of my dilemma, which may lead to more sound advice:

Needs!

Backup/secondary body, either a 6d or a refurb mk3 ($1800-2800)

Replace 70-200 2.8 non IS with 70-200 2.8ISv2 ($2200 - minus $1000 in resale ---approximate final cost $1200ish)

replace 24-70 v1 with 24-70 v2 (maybe) - (resale value $1200, purchase value $2300, approximate final cost of $1100ish) ----- or, (resale value of $1200, purchase value of $1500, approxmiate final cost of $3-400ish).

So, with all that said, a 12mm tube is about $90. Using existing tools and cropping will cost me $0.00. Some say the tubes are a great stop gap, others say they are rubbish. I'm trying to read between the lines here and it basically comes down to that question:

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?


----------



## kentandersen (Apr 30, 2013)

There is no quality loss when using tubes. It is only air inside of them and no glass. You loose 1-2 stops, and you have an extreme narrow depth of field, but you will get youre macro.


----------



## Bobbins (Apr 30, 2013)

Iv'e had great success with some auto extension tubes, plus I only paid 60 on eBay for the set of 3 auto tubes, they aren't metal like I believe the Kenkos are, but they work great! It looks like you already have nice glass to pair up with too. I love my extension tubes with my cheapo 55-250 and a $7 over the lens flash diffuser from Amazon, I can handhold with my T2i and use the 10x magnification live view and stop down the aperture a ton, around 16 or higher and even use the built in flash, it is a great budget way to get really good macro and you already have good glass in the 70-200. Also, I really like using the tubes with my 55-250 because of how long the focal range is, I find it easier to focus using the zoom to get an approximate working distance, than focus by moving my hands while watching the magnified live view.


----------



## Frodo (Apr 30, 2013)

kentandersen said:


> There is no quality loss when using tubes. It is only air inside of them and no glass. You loose 1-2 stops, and you have an extreme narrow depth of field, but you will get youre macro.



Lenses are generally optimised optically at infinity. I have the 50/2.5 macro. It has a floating element system, which means it changes optically as it focuses closer, so at 1:2 its not the same as at infinity. It is better when focused to 1:2, than focused at infinity with the EF25mm. It is also better at 1:1 with the life-size adapter that has glass than with my EF25mm extension tube. Simple lenses such as the nifty fifty simply rack the entire optical system further from the focal plane.

However, the (slight) reduction in optical quality may be acceptable. This will vary between lenses. My 70-200/4 (non-IS) is definitely less sharp than my 200/2.8 when used with the EF25mm extension tube. Indeed, I suggest that for the OP, extension tubes would meet his needs optically and financially, but a close-up lens would be easier when busy on the job.

I'll do some comparison shots in a few hours of the 50/2.5 with extension tube, life-size converter and with 250D closeup lens.

Cheers


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 30, 2013)

Dave_NYC said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Time to get this back on track ---repeating a question:
> ...



Yeah, It does kind of boil right down to that...and if I am to do that, manswell just start with the cheapest option first!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 30, 2013)

Frodo said:


> kentandersen said:
> 
> 
> > There is no quality loss when using tubes. It is only air inside of them and no glass. You loose 1-2 stops, and you have an extreme narrow depth of field, but you will get youre macro.
> ...



TY man...the more images I see from each option the better informed I am as I move forward!


----------



## brad-man (May 1, 2013)

Pick up this 25mm tube for $30. I picked up a used Canon one on ebay, but I'm sure they are equal. It cuts the MFD of most lenses in half. I use it with my EF100L, but it works great on any lens. I am a big fan of IS, so when you swap your old 70-200 for the mkll, your MFD will be 24" with IS. It ain't macro, but it's a damn fine close up. The IS and 24" distance will allow plenty of stability and light so you can get the DOF you want. What's $30 in the major scheme of things?

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Focus-Macro-Extension-Camera/dp/B00A40EVCO


----------



## Frodo (May 1, 2013)

Here are some comparison shots:
50mm 2.5 @ f8 and ISO 100. I used f8 as it appeared that the OP used something similar in the ring shots. f8 provides sufficient depth of field and a soft background. All focused on the centre of the same flower. Live view (so mirror locked up) and 2 sec self-timer.
Large fine, downsized to 1020 pixels high (I have the original files)

1.	1.5 ft (min focus of 50mm f1.4
2.	1.5 ft with Canon 250D close up lens
3.	0.89 ft (27cm) to give similar magnification (1:3)
4.	0.75ft (23cm) 1:2
5.	Focused at infinity with 25mm extension tube
6.	Set at similar magnification 1:2 with life size converter.
The last two are in the next post.


----------



## Frodo (May 1, 2013)




----------



## Frodo (May 1, 2013)

Here 1000 pixel vertical crops of the original images.
First the two photos at 1:3. 50mm focused at 1.5 ft with 250D, then 50mm focused at 0.89 ft (no close up lens)
I note that the second photo is not focused at the same point as the first (bit of a rush over my lunchbreak!).


----------



## Frodo (May 1, 2013)

Now the three photos at 1:3 
50 focused to 1:2
50 focused at infinity with EF25mm extension tube
50 focused at ininity with lifesize converter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2013)

If you get tubes, Kenko is good, even the Opteka one linked is fine - they're all filled with the same air. Personally, I went with the Canon tubes - for macro work I wouldn't have, but since my main use is between a heavy and expensive body (1D X) and a much heavier and more expensive lens (600 II), I wanted to be sure of the mount strength.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 1, 2013)

been rethinking things....my 24-70v1...for some reason I have black listed this lens as the worst in my kit, leave it at home, and yeah lets dump/sell it... Why?????? when I got my primes, I fell in love and wanted to use them...cause they rock...but, that 24-70...it's not nearly as bad as I had thought, and ---it can actually get pretty close, not macro close but close ---here's 2 just snapped... It was shot in mRAW (so if i bumped it to full RAW it would be even better) so keep that in mind, first one is uncropped, as close as i can get with the 24-70, second is a heavy crop...

So, maybe the answer in the hear and now is right in my bag! I may still snag a tube, just to see what they're like. But, I think I may be able to get by just fine with existing gear...which would give me the flexibility to snag a dedicated macro lens down the line.

TY for all the great advice everyone!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2013)

The 24-70 MkI has one of the highest maximum magnifications available in a non-macro lens - 0.29x. It's great for close-ups.


----------



## sootzzs (May 5, 2013)

I can't afford a true macro right now, so this is what I use for now: 55mm of cheap Chinese tubes (6$) and 30$ russian Industar 50-2 f3.5 (which is the smallest 50 I've ever seen) and chiped m42-EOS adapter (9$). 

~100% crop


shot at f16 with of camera flash, iso 200. Basic sharpening and PP in LR. 
Don't know how it compares with real macro lens but for the price seems like a great deal to me.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 14, 2013)

I want to thank you all again for the lively debate and good advice. I was at my local shop yesterday looking for a smaller shoulder bag and had extra time so played around with the three options - tubes, close ups...and the 100mm 2.8L ...

And yeah, I can definitely say that the 100L made me wish I had extra $$$ in my account!!!!

Test shots in the camera store. Fun! I just picked up a backup body, so not till later in the season, but by august I think this lens will be in my bag....thanks again!


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 14, 2013)

I'm still in love with my 100 2.8L IS


Such a versatile and sharp lens.


----------

