extender or close up lens?

i am interested in making some macro-ish images and was thinking of those two options. any input? are they two completely different things, results wise? things don't need to be razor sharp, just close. i am looking for kind of a dreamy look like this:



grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

mooseknuckle said:

i am interested in making some macro-ish images and was thinking of
those two options. any input? are they two completely different
things, results wise? things don't need to be razor sharp, just
close. i am looking for kind of a dreamy look like this:



grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

Click to expand...

--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

Kenko type extender tubes are probably the easiest and least expensive way to get closer, using any lense you already have. They work fine on stationary objects like flowers, less fine on moving objects that may go outside the available focus limit. The big downside of tubes is that they greatly reduce the usable near-to-far focus range. You can't get to infinity focus, nor even close.

BTW if you happen to have the Canon 70-200 2.8, it makes a great closeup lense - even at 200mm it focuses at around 4.5 feet.

• Cecil

Here's a sample flower closeup with the 70-200 2.8 @200mm on a stack of Kenko tubes:

• Cecil

I don't know much about close-up lenses as I haven't ever used them. But I'd say you could get more bang for you buck with extension tubes in doing macro photography.

If you've ever used or seen a macro lens you may have noticed that they can extend out from the camera substantially in their focusing travel. Some macro lenses have a scale on them to indicate the magnification ratio. A ratio of 1:1, for example, indicates that the image is the same size as the subject.

This also means that the distance from the optical center of the lens to the subject is the same as the distance from the optical center of the lens to the film (sensor) plane.

Extension tubes perform the same function by moving the attached lens farther than normal from the film plane. The farther away from the film plane the lens is, the closer you can get to the subject and the larger the image will be.

One practical limit to this is when the camera (and/or photographer) start blocking the illuminating light. Another practical aspect to this type of setup is that your camera-to-subject positioning is more critical, because the lens' focusing mechanism will be more limited, so you have to move the camera into the narrower focusing range of the mechanism.

Hello Grant! If you are not on a very tight budget, go for a macro lens. When you use extension rings the focus range is very limited, which is why you have to have a whole set, which in turn means you'll find yourself changing/adding/taking away extension rings all the time. Too troublesome - life is too short. Besides, macro-lenses are optimized (optically corrected) for close focusing.

A Kenko extension set costs about $110 and for $369 you can get the Sigma 105/2.8EX Macro, which is not a bad lens... The Canon 100/2.8 Macro is $450 (grey market) or $470 (USA), but doesn't go all the way to 1:1 without accessories, like the Sigma and Tamron SP90/2.8 do. The Tamron costs about the same as the Canon, but I have seen a comparative test/review on these three lenses and the conclusion was that the Tamron lens was the best of the bunch. My father has the Tamron and last time I visited I tried it on my EOS10D - very good indeed - not only as a macro-lens, but as a general purpose and people lens as well! That said, I have seen some pretty amazing shots from the other two lenses as well (Sigma 105/2.8EX Macro and the Canon 100/2.8 Macro).
--
Olaf

I come from a flat land of horizontal sunlight and horizontal rains...

mooseknuckle said:

i am interested in making some macro-ish images and was thinking of
those two options. any input? are they two completely different
things, results wise? things don't need to be razor sharp, just
close. i am looking for kind of a dreamy look like this:

Click to expand...

Just checked the price of the Tamron SP90/2.8 Macro at Adorama and found that there is a $40 Mfr. Rebate, valid until the end of June. Net price = $459-40 = $419.
--
Olaf

I come from a flat land of horizontal sunlight and horizontal rains...

thanks for the sample and the info.

grant

Cecil Williams said:

Here's a sample flower closeup with the 70-200 2.8 @200mm on a
stack of Kenko tubes:

• Cecil

Click to expand...

--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

olaf

thanks for the info. sounds like i might just want to get a macro lens...i appreciated your nice words about my "sweet dreams" pic in the last challenge.

grant

Olaf.dk said:

A Kenko extension set costs about $110 and for $369 you can get the
Sigma 105/2.8EX Macro, which is not a bad lens... The Canon 100/2.8
Macro is $450 (grey market) or $470 (USA), but doesn't go all the
way to 1:1 without accessories, like the Sigma and Tamron SP90/2.8
do. The Tamron costs about the same as the Canon, but I have seen a
comparative test/review on these three lenses and the conclusion
was that the Tamron lens was the best of the bunch. My father has
the Tamron and last time I visited I tried it on my EOS10D - very
good indeed - not only as a macro-lens, but as a general purpose
and people lens as well! That said, I have seen some pretty amazing
shots from the other two lenses as well (Sigma 105/2.8EX Macro and
the Canon 100/2.8 Macro).
--
Olaf

I come from a flat land of horizontal sunlight and horizontal rains...

mooseknuckle said:

i am interested in making some macro-ish images and was thinking of
those two options. any input? are they two completely different
things, results wise? things don't need to be razor sharp, just
close. i am looking for kind of a dreamy look like this:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

Olaf.dk said:

The Canon 100/2.8
Macro is $450 (grey market) or $470 (USA), but doesn't go all the
way to 1:1 without accessories, like the Sigma and Tamron SP90/2.8
do.

Click to expand...

Oops, the Canon 100 Macro DOES go to 1:1 without accessories. I was confused, the above would be true if we were talking about the 50mm macros...
--
Olaf

I come from a flat land of horizontal sunlight and horizontal rains...

Depends what you want to do....the following picture is taken with a standard Canon EF 28-90, no editing....

mooseknuckle said:

i am interested in making some macro-ish images and was thinking of
those two options. any input? are they two completely different
things, results wise? things don't need to be razor sharp, just
close. i am looking for kind of a dreamy look like this:



grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

Click to expand...