# Extention tube ?'s



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

For 100mm L macro.

Any performance difference at all between Kenko and Canon tubes? Electronic performance or sturdiness?

I'm thinking of either getting Kenko just to start with a full set, or instead buy 1 Canon tube at a time as I might not need a full set anyways? Anyone doing a lot of work with this lens on tubes? Any info would be appreciated, I've looked up a bunch of stuff but no direct comparisons between brands from people who tried both.


----------



## seanature (Dec 4, 2011)

The Canon tubes are definitely more rugged, though I have used the Kenko tubes for many, many years in tough conditions without any trouble. All the tubes are hollow, so there isn't a difference with the optics. 

Using extension tubes can be incredibly awkward. Set up can be very slow with a lot of trial and error. A true macro lens and a focusing rail is absolutely the way to go if you want to do serious macro photography. 

If you want to try to make due with the tubes, however, I think the Kenko package is the way to go. I often use mine with the 70-200 and even a few mm of extension can make a huge difference. I think if you had only one tube, you would get frustrated fast.

Kevin


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

That makes sense, thanks. Yeah I'm getting that lens next, and I figured a set of tubes makes sense to at least try. Keno's not much of an investment and everyone says they are good. Just wondering comparing them directly to Canon what the differences were but that about covers it. I've heard they are a chore to work with.

How would use use a focus rail though on a moving subject. I'm not going to disturb wildlife just to get a nice picture (this is for shooting bugs), not sure if I can use that. Maybe tubes won't work at all for me realistically, but if I get them, better to start cheap I suppose just to see. I was just curious that if I only ended up needed one or two tubes, I might be frustrated that I didn't put the money into Canon. Anyways thanks.


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Dec 4, 2011)

if you've got a crop body and going to use extension tubes on a Macro lens, wouldn't it make more sense to go with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro instead of the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro? 

the shorter the focal length the great gain in maximum magnification for a given extension tube. so since both lenses are 1X putting the full 68mm of the Kenko extension tube set would put you at a MM of 2.13X on the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro as opposed to 1.68X on the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. They are both f/2.8 so the light loss from extension tubes is a toss up.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

Well I want the lens for it's general purpose utility as well. Yes I have a crop to use it with.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2011)

I find my 100mm L and 7D a ideal combination, I like it better than my 5d MK II. I can also use a short extension tube handheld, which you really can't do with other lenses. It only adds a little magnification, but still gives working distance. the problem with short focal length lenses and tubes is that you have to get so close to the subject thats its very difficult.

I believe I tok this with my 100mmL handheld with a short tube.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

Any flash on that Spokane? A wedding photographer told me to skip buying a dedicated macro flash and just link up two regular EX flashes instead since I need to have two of those eventually anyways...

I'm definitely getting the lens first. I'm not going to be using tri-pods or anything to start. Maybe I'll get a single Canon short tube after I get a feel for the lens. I'm guessing a single larger Canon tube is too much for hand-holding without a flash?


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Dec 4, 2011)

for general purposes the EF-S 60mm is roughly a 100mm equivalent. i find a lot more general uses out of a 100mm equivalent vs. a 160mm equivalent. As far as macro goes I guess it just depends on how skiddish your subject is.


the following are shot on APS-C with the EF 50mm f/1.4 plus 32mm of extension tubes. The 60mm with extension tubes would allow you a lot greater maximum magnification.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 4, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Any flash on that Spokane? A wedding photographer told me to skip buying a dedicated macro flash and just link up two regular EX flashes instead since I need to have two of those eventually anyways...



Multi off camera flash are a great way to go - they work well with Canon Wireless as the distances are small and are line of sight. Get a much sharper image too!


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

thejoyofsobe yeah I hear you but again I am not talking about the 60, I am getting the 100mm Macro, thanks though, nice pictures (but they need post processing to really make them shine), good stuff.

Thanks briansquibb makes sense. Is it a lot harder to do it that way? Because I need to have those anyways, would save a decent bit of cash. Buying just a second EX would be very helpful, that twin-light thing is expensive, needs an adapter to mount it on the 100 and I still wouldn't have a second EX for general two body use Thanks


----------



## phixional ninja (Dec 4, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Any flash on that Spokane? A wedding photographer told me to skip buying a dedicated macro flash and just link up two regular EX flashes instead since I need to have two of those eventually anyways...
> 
> I'm definitely getting the lens first. I'm not going to be using tri-pods or anything to start. Maybe I'll get a single Canon short tube after I get a feel for the lens. I'm guessing a single larger Canon tube is too much for hand-holding without a flash?



If you have enough available light, you can definitely hand hold with tubes. This was handheld, Canon 70-200 f4L non-IS on a 7D, with all three Kenko tubes (so a total of 68mm of tubes), no flash. I'm pretty happy with the quality. Here's another with the same setup, taken slightly closer (check out the full res to see the detail captured in the eye).

As for off camera flash, I'm really interested in getting the components for this setup (details here). It seems very versatile.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 4, 2011)

I did a quick comparison of MM figures for lenses (that I own) with different lengths of Kenk tubes, over at TDP here.
70-300L used to be my favourite macro lens, although i think now I prefer the 85/1.8, just because it's lighter and easier to work with, although I do miss the IS. The working distance (lens tip to subject) is a lot more with the 85/1.8.

As for kenko vs canon tubes:
- Kenko you get 6 length combinations of 12/20/32/36/48/56/68mm for about the price of a single length of canon.
- Build quality is good enough, I never even looked at the canons in person so I can't directly compare (although I do suppose that the canons will have it a bit better).
- I've used my 70-300L (1kg) with all 3 tubes, carried just by the camera, never had a second thought about not trusting it.
- I'd recommend the 100LIS over the 60, just for the IS alone, it doesn't work as well (to as many f-stops) as at infinity focus, but becomes more and more useful at closer distances.

And the requisite sample, 70-300L with all my kenko tubes, full uncropped, onboard 7D flash which reflected off the white wall behind and gave him a bit of backlighting, lens shielded the direct-flash (first shot was a mistake but I liked the effect so I took a few more like it).


----------



## phixional ninja (Dec 4, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> And the requisite sample, 70-300L with all my kenko tubes, full uncropped, onboard 7D flash which reflected off the white wall behind and gave him a bit of backlighting, lens shielded the direct-flash (first shot was a mistake but I liked the effect so I took a few more like it).



I've been considering replacing my 70-200L with the 70-300L, and one thing I was a little worried about was whether it would work as well with extension tubes. Your example certainly clears up that concern!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Thanks briansquibb makes sense. Is it a lot harder to do it that way? Because I need to have those anyways, would save a decent bit of cash. Buying just a second EX would be very helpful, that twin-light thing is expensive, needs an adapter to mount it on the 100 and I still wouldn't have a second EX for general two body use Thanks



The MT24-EX is great, almost essential, on the MP-E 65mm. But I rarely use it on the 100L Macro. I do sometimes use a pair of 430EX II's with the 100L. It's a bit of a pain to set up, a dual flash bracket would make it a lot easier. Actually, I sometimes use one flash on a bracket for subject, another on a stand/Justin clamp for lighting the background (I trigger it with a PocketWizard).


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 4, 2011)

Hand holding is one of those arts of photography you learn to do.

The 100 with a full set of extension tubes is much easier to hold than a 70-200 f2.8 L!

The real art is learning to manage the DoF and focus issues - flash, as always, is a subject all in itself.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 4, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> Hand holding is one of those arts of photography you learn to do.
> 
> The 100 with a full set of extension tubes is much easier to hold than a 70-200 f2.8 L!
> 
> The real art is learning to manage the DoF and focus issues - flash, as always, is a subject all in itself.



Don't forget all the weird things that happen when you use tubes, especially with a zoom lens, you can use either ring to bring the subject into focus. Takes a lot of practice but after a few hundred shots I think i've got it down for my 70-300L. Or my 85/1.8, when I put on all 68mm of tubes, focussing at 'macro' leaves *more* distance to subject than focussing at 'infinity' (see my link in previous post), ie the focus ring has a 'zoom' function at high mag...


----------



## darleks (Dec 4, 2011)

what are extension tubes? how do they work? where can i find more infos please? do i need them?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 4, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks briansquibb makes sense. Is it a lot harder to do it that way? Because I need to have those anyways, would save a decent bit of cash. Buying just a second EX would be very helpful, that twin-light thing is expensive, needs an adapter to mount it on the 100 and I still wouldn't have a second EX for general two body use Thanks
> ...



I like to place 2 lights facing each other about 45degrees from the line of the lens 

If you are happy with wireless flash then it is easy. Pocketwizzard is the simplest way - but most expensive if you haven't already got them.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Any flash on that Spokane? A wedding photographer told me to skip buying a dedicated macro flash and just link up two regular EX flashes instead since I need to have two of those eventually anyways...
> 
> I'm definitely getting the lens first. I'm not going to be using tri-pods or anything to start. Maybe I'll get a single Canon short tube after I get a feel for the lens. I'm guessing a single larger Canon tube is too much for hand-holding without a flash?



No flash, it was in the morning with lots of diffused bright daylight. I've had Canon, Kenko, and now a cheap bower set of automatic tubes. They work fine with a light lens, but I wouldn't use them with a big telephoto.

You don't need to get expensive ones unless you have a 3kg lens. Be sure to get a set with the autofocus contact pass thru or you will be all manual, even aperture. You do get what you pay for, and the low cost ones have weak couplings, so don't overload them. Mine will flex if too big a load is on them, but no issue for ordinary lenses. 

Mine came with a used Film Camera I bought, here is a Amazon link. They may cost less on ebay.

http://www.amazon.com/Bower-Extension-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B005EQS49E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323040732&sr=8-2


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 5, 2011)

The following blog may help that I wrote for a friend of mine - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2011/11/today-im-happy-to-have-blog-reader.html

In terms of the difference between the Kenko and Canon extension tubes, for most practical purposes there is none. The only time the Canon ones are recommended over Kenko is if you're putting them on a large lens such as a 500/4. Otherwise the Kenko ones will work just fine. I have the Kenko tubes and use them often.

I have the 100/2.8 IS and must admit I have never really desired to put extension tubes on it. I typically use my extension tubes with my TS-E 90 and 300/4 to get that extra bit of magnification. The 100/2.8 generally has enough magnification itself. When it doesn't I use my MP-E 65 but then either need an MT-24EX or a macro rail + tripod.

In terms of my 100/2.8 IS I use it most often hand held - far easier with its hybrid IS. One main reason for this is flash tends to look awful on flowers and other larger (macro-wise) subjects. Another problem is for the 100/2.8 neither a hot shoe flash nor an MT-24 EX is really the ideal way to go. You need light approaching at a much softer angle than either can provide. When I used to have my 180L I attached two Wimberley macro brackets to the foot and that allowed a lot more creativity with the heads of the MT-24EX. With the 100/2.8 I haven't bothered to buy the collar with foot.

Note that supposedly the hybrid IS of the 100/2.8 IS works better on the 7D than on the 5D2. The 7D is newer and is designed to work better with that IS. I have both and I haven't bothered to measure it. I still almost always favor the 5D2 simply due to image quality. Diffraction and poor performance at high ISO's are always in favor of the 5D2.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 5, 2011)

for flash I got one of these

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/150684587432?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

can use 2 580ex flash and point where you like, mount it to a cheap ebay tripod foot for the 100 and then fix the camera to a focusing rail

I also use the kenko tubes, you can also use the kenko 1.4 DGX TC aswell for that extra boost


----------



## moreorless (Dec 5, 2011)

One more expensive alternative I'd heard mention is using the Canon lifesize converter for the old 50mm 2.5 macro. While it was marketed exclusively for use with that lens I'v seen comments that it will work with any EF(not EF-S) lens such as the 100mm IS L macro. Seems like its a mix of extension tube and teleconverter optimised for macro.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 5, 2011)

thank you one and all for responding. I learned a lot. cheers


----------



## funkboy (Dec 5, 2011)

I've got the Kenko set & just carry the 12mm ring in my bag all the time. Works really well with my 85 1.8, and have used it a bit with the long end of my 24-105L just to have IS.

One thing I found kind of cool with the short rings like the 12mm is that while you of course loose infinity focus, with longer telephotos like my 135L it will still focus out to a few meters. Handy in a pinch for getting a close-up of something you can't get closer to...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 6, 2011)

funkboy said:


> I've got the Kenko set & just carry the 12mm ring in my bag all the time. Works really well with my 85 1.8, and have used it a bit with the long end of my 24-105L just to have IS.
> 
> One thing I found kind of cool with the short rings like the 12mm is that while you of course loose infinity focus, with longer telephotos like my 135L it will still focus out to a few meters. Handy in a pinch for getting a close-up of something you can't get closer to...



A extension ring requires you to get closer. A TC will let you say at the same point and get some magnification.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 6, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > I've got the Kenko set & just carry the 12mm ring in my bag all the time. Works really well with my 85 1.8, and have used it a bit with the long end of my 24-105L just to have IS.
> ...


and if you stick both on you can really get stuck in nice and close


----------



## sammy (Dec 6, 2011)

I've been interested in extension tubes, are there some easy formulas to work out magnification for a lens? I gather the MFD doesn't change with one?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 6, 2011)

sammy said:


> I've been interested in extension tubes, are there some easy formulas to work out magnification for a lens? I gather the MFD doesn't change with one?


If you missed my post on the last page, just read this link, it's what i've tested so far with my tubes (and lensbaby diopters).
MFD does change, and there's no easy formula (afaik), there's only one for a 'thin lens' (ie, ideal lenses that you can't buy in real life, closest you'd get is a lensbaby single glass or a pinhole). Real lenses have many more elements so the maths get a lot lot harder, easier to just experiment like I did for that link...


----------



## sammy (Dec 6, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> sammy said:
> 
> 
> > I've been interested in extension tubes, are there some easy formulas to work out magnification for a lens? I gather the MFD doesn't change with one?
> ...


Thanks, I'm going through it now taking it in and while I don't have those exact combinations looks like a good starting point


----------



## funkboy (Dec 6, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> and if you stick both on you can really get stuck in nice and close



Yep, tried that too on my old 70-200 f/4L non-IS before I sold it. I could get an AF lock out as far as about 4m on the tele end of it.


----------

