Tubes or dedicated Macro

Recently picked up a Canon 85 f1.8.
Planning for next purchase which I'd like to be in the macro arena.

Wondering about using extension tubes (possibly the Kenko's) with the 85mm or whether I would be better off going with a true macro lens (likely Canon 100mm f2.8 (~$450 for lens vs ~$175 for tubes)

I have never had any true macro capability before but love many of the macro images I've seen here so I'm interested in having a go.

Cost is a consideration but not an overriding factor if the lens is a much better solution. Tubes and macro lens probably not viable at the outset but if I get hooked maybe somewhere down the line. Obviously the 100mm would give me another prime focal length but its pretty close to 85mm so don't think that is a big factor for me especially with a 70-200 zoom on the wishlist soon too.

TIA

For an occasional macro shot extension tubes are OK but if you are going to take macro, specially 1:1 or greater magnification shots regularly, then you should seriously consider a dedicated macro lens in spite of the cost. With 85mm lens a full set of Kenco extension tubes (68mm) would take you to almost 1:1 but you will lose about 2 stops equivalent in light. The maximum aperture of F1.8 would not compensate for it because you would need to set the aperture at F8 or smaller to get any usable depth of field. Macro lenses are geared for close-up work and has a flat field, thus the results are likely to be superior compared to a non-macro lens. ETs will inevitably slow down AF (AF may not operate at all) though many people do not use AF at all for macro shots. But others do use AF & for them a dedicated macro lens would be better. Depending on the subject of your interest you may consider Canon 60mm macro lens which is optically as good as 100mm but quite a bit cheaper. For static objects, such as flowers, 60mm lens is fine but you have to get closer to the subject compared to the 100mm lens for the same magnification. Skittish insects may not like the intrusion. Longer the focal length, further away you can stay from the subject, for the same magnification.
--
Gautam

You might want to save up and buy something like the 150 Sigma macro. This would give you a true macro lens and a prime that is quite a bit longer than your 85.

Regards,

jgb

dpski said:

Recently picked up a Canon 85 f1.8.
Planning for next purchase which I'd like to be in the macro arena.

Wondering about using extension tubes (possibly the Kenko's) with
the 85mm or whether I would be better off going with a true macro
lens (likely Canon 100mm f2.8 (~$450 for lens vs ~$175 for tubes)

I have never had any true macro capability before but love many of
the macro images I've seen here so I'm interested in having a go.

Cost is a consideration but not an overriding factor if the lens is
a much better solution. Tubes and macro lens probably not viable
at the outset but if I get hooked maybe somewhere down the line.
Obviously the 100mm would give me another prime focal length but
its pretty close to 85mm so don't think that is a big factor for me
especially with a 70-200 zoom on the wishlist soon too.

TIA

Click to expand...

--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

I had the 3 piece Kenko AF tubes for my Nikon stuff. They suited my specific need, but using extension tubes does a couple of things:

-robs you of light
-dictates close working distance

The latter really is the limiting one. The lens will only focus at a paper-thin distance from the subject. The lens element has to be right there - right on the subject. For some macro work this is fine - for a lot of other stuff, it really isn't.

As been said: Extension tubes rob your light.

Dedicated macro lenses do the same.

Extension tubes or macro lenses: True 1:1 macro photography costs two stops of light.
-

dpski wrote:
SNIP

dpski said:

I have never had any true macro capability before but love many of
the macro images I've seen here so I'm interested in having a go.

Click to expand...

SNIP

You may want to look at what type of lens, macro lens, tubes, CU filter, or whatever was used to capture the macro images you love. That would probably be the setup that would suit you best.

I have a Sigma 50 mm macro which is great for imaging the small computer parts I fabricate, and I use it with an el cheapo Samigon ringlight. I am very happy with that stuff for this type of macro.

However Ill bet the images you "love" are more like the ones on this page

http://www.pbase.com/tommy2guns/butterfly_rainforest_at_university_of_florida&page=all

especially ones like this

http://www.pbase.com/tommy2guns/image/68104658/original

All these images were captured using a Sigma 150 macro, most with a Sigma 1.4 TC and a Sigma EF580 Super. IMHO for insects you need all the working distance you can get and some type of flash, and a ring light seems to be too flat for my tastes.

That being said the Canon macros are all just fine, I like the Sigma for its speed and price, but I would not hesitate to use a Canon macro if the price was right.

I tried tubes and they work fine, but they are such a pain in the rear to use. You are constantly adding and subtracting to get things just right. If you are serious about macro, get a dedicated lens. You won't be sorry.

Jim
http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt

Canon's best.
--
---
****************************************

'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct. 1984)

Stovall said:

Canon's best.
--
---
****************************************
'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in
the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct.
1984)

Click to expand...

thanks to sigma there are better options...

Erland

I hate to be a contrarian, not wait, I don't. Get the tubes.

All of these posters are suggesting one macro they like. With tubes, every lens in your kit is a macro lens.

I always keep a 12mm tube in my bag, but sometimes I use others. I've made great macro shots with everything from a 28mm to a 300mm.

For next to nothing you can get your feet wet. If you love macro, then dive in for the dedicated lens.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com

Erland Nielsen said:

Stovall said:

Canon's best.
--
---
****************************************
'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in
the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct.
1984)

Click to expand...

thanks to sigma there are better options...

Click to expand...

Care to offer suggestions?
I don't have experience with Sigma.

--
Macro-
http://www.pbase.com/dbh/galleries

Long end of zooms work great too. If you use a long zoom for walkaround this makes a natural. With a TC you get magnification of the central image which makes for even better macro.

Like a dedicated macro lens, a zoom allows focusing from very close to infinity and this is one drawback to ET since you can no longer focus at infinity.

A dedicated macro, while slower than a prime, is good for general purpose as well. So a 60mm (small lens) or 100mm (larger bulkier lens) make good general purpose lenses and they are among the sharpest lenses too.

Even going with a combination of dedicated macro, long end or a zoom and a teleconverter you might also want to still carry a set of ET's. You can actually stack TC and ET's for additional magnification!

It's all about having choices.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

Thomas Kachadurian said:

I hate to be a contrarian, not wait, I don't. Get the tubes.

All of these posters are suggesting one macro they like. With
tubes, every lens in your kit is a macro lens.

I always keep a 12mm tube in my bag, but sometimes I use others.
I've made great macro shots with everything from a 28mm to a 300mm.

For next to nothing you can get your feet wet. If you love macro,
then dive in for the dedicated lens.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com

Click to expand...

I agree Try the tubes and have fun then get the real thing. I went with the EF 100 mm 2.8 USM II no regrets here .The 85 with the tubes work but lots of non keepers For me.. Heres an example of the 85 with I believe to be the 20 mm kenko tube and the 10d..

Thanks all.

I like the suggestion to get longer macro than I had originally considered e.g. Sigma 150.

I am leaning toward getting a set of tubes and a 70-200 zoom first and getting the macro down the line a little. Would probably get a 1.4x TC with zoom (likely the f4 version) so the Sigma would also give me an extra stop vs the zoom and also much different focal length than my 85mm prime.

Believe that setup would provide lots of options.

The Sigma looks like a very good macro - how does it do as an normal subject lens - focus speed, color accuracy etc.