EF25 II extension tube ?

[Hank3152]

I'm considering getting the 25II extension tube for my 100f/2.8L. Can anyone provide samples or a link that compares results with/without it.............

The reviews seem to qualify it as a great accessory but many of them are from users that are converting an existing non-macro lens like the 50f/1.4 which I don't foresee doing.

So is it a worthwhile addition to the 100f/2.8L macro..........??
--
Regards,
Hank

 

[Abbott Schindler]

I've got both of the extension tubes. Their benefit to you depend on what you want to do.

First: the tubes work on most Canon lenses. I get a lot of use from them with my telephotos as well as the 100 macro. They allow you to focus closer and thus get a bit more magnification from the lens. Note that with the tube on.

If you're looking for greater magnification, then the tube is a great approach. Keep in mind that the 25mm tube will reduce your aperture by 2 stops (the 12mm tube reduces it by 1 stop), so DoF, brightness in your finder/LCD, perhaps focusing accuracy and other factors could become considerations.

I don't have images to share with you, but I can tell you that I've not seen image degradation even from stacked tubes, and for me, the results are definitely worthwhile. That's why I have both tubes (which can also be used in combination with a TC for interesting results).

Abbott

 

[Hank3152]

Thanks for the thorough reply Abbott............now I'll consider both of them...........
--
Regards,
Hank

 

[oldfartwitha5d]

I Think the 100L works well with ETs. This shot and the butterfly shots that follows were with the 100L + 12mm tube + 1.4x TC

http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/p310556975/h11cbc1f8#h11cbc1f8

--
http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/

 

[Apewithacamera]

You don't want one of those! The optical quality is so poor because they didn't put any glass in!

 

[cjed]

... Keep in mind that the 25mm tube will reduce your aperture by 2 stops (the 12mm tube reduces it by 1 stop), so DoF, brightness in your finder/LCD, perhaps focusing accuracy and other factors could become considerations.

That's not true.The light loss caused by extension tubes is inversely proportional to the focal length of the original lens. For example, a 25mm tube results in a 1 stop loss on a 50mm lens, but only a half stop loss on a 100mm lens, or a quarter stop loss on a 200mm lens.

Lots of good info on Extension tubes and Close-up diopter filters and their effects on Canon lenses here : http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

 

[CameraCarl]

Just so the inexperienced do not misinterpret the apewithacamera post. It was made in jest -- I hope! An extension tube is designed to provide offset between the lens and the focal plane of the camera to allow for closer focusing with an ensuing loss of the ability to focus to infinity.

 

[cjed]

Bear in mind that the effect of extension tubes depends upon the focal length of the lens you're putting them behind. The longer the focal length, the less increase in magnification you'll get. Adding a 25mm tube to the 100mm macro will only increase the maximum magnification from 1x to around 1.3x

If you're interested in using extension tubes, you may be better off getting a set of the Kenko tubes, they provide a combined extension of around 68mm, which should give you close to 2x magnification with the 100mm Macro.

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

 

[Hank3152]

Just so the inexperienced do not misinterpret the apewithacamera post. It was made in jest -- I hope!

...... it was...............
--
Regards,
Hank

 

[WT Jones]

The canon tubes are nice, as well as expensive. I have the newer kenko set too. They have the contacts for the electrical stuff & fit both EF & EF-S lenses.

Hank no matter what tube/s you use it will work great on a 100 macro. Your magnification will improve. I would guess Cjed is right about the 68mm set giving 2x mag. Looks about right.

Here is a Vernier scale on a measuring tool with the 100 f2.8 & 68mm of tubes



This small picture is much larger than the real tool. I need a magnifying glass to use it in real life.
--
Warren

 

[brightcolours]

Bear in mind that the effect of extension tubes depends upon the focal length of the lens you're putting them behind. The longer the focal length, the less increase in magnification you'll get. Adding a 25mm tube to the 100mm macro will only increase the maximum magnification from 1x to around 1.3x

1.39 to be exact.

If you're interested in using extension tubes, you may be better off getting a set of the Kenko tubes, they provide a combined extension of around 68mm, which should give you close to 2x magnification with the 100mm Macro.

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

 

[Hundeboll]

Hi

I have just looked at some of your pictures in your gallery. I was transferred to a picture of a butterfly but also see many flowers. To be honest I see no pictures that could not have been done using a 100L without tubes or extenders. I would have expected more close-up - or am I wrong ?

The pictures looks nice but the difference with and without the tube and extender is not clear to me.

Jørn

 

[tonyjr]

nice shots
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

 

[tonyjr]

I would get the kenko set , cheaper and just as good . I have the older kenko set plus the EF 25 . [ the ef 25 - kenko is 20 mm I think . If you get the EF version , they are a little cheaper because they won't work on EFS lenses , . But if you get the EF 12 II and stack them they will . I am still looking for the EF 12 II , but no rush , the only EFS lenses I have are the 18-55 [ backup ] the 17-55 and the 10-22 .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

 

[Lost in Time]

Yes, it is worth getting. As others have noted the magnification is a shade under 1.4x. On a 40D (10Mpixel crop) I can not see any difference in image quality with or without the tube.

However, don't buy the Canon: the set of three Kenko tube set costs less than the single Canon ring and the quality is essentially identical. I have both sets and the only difference is that the Canon has an additional felt layer inside to reduce internal reflections - this seems to make no difference with the 100mm L macro. Another advantage of the Kenko set is more flexibility: I sometimes use the 12mm Kenko ring with a Sigma 50mm to get more dreamy macro shots than I get with the 100L.

Some samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14989580@N00/5258908678 (Canon 25mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14989580@N00/5393401145 (Canon 25mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14989580@N00/5950833301 (Kenko stack)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14989580@N00/5892121304 (Kenko + Canon)

The last image uses a Canon tube (25mm) tube plus all three Kenko tubes (12+20+36mm) combined. This gives something like 2.5:1 magnification, but the overall image quality has dropped quite a lot. Also at this point you are so close that it can be hard to avoid the lens barrel casting a shadow on the subject.

--
http://www.flickr.com/14989580@N00

 

[oldfartwitha5d]

Hi

I have just looked at some of your pictures in your gallery. I was transferred to a picture of a butterfly but also see many flowers. To be honest I see no pictures that could not have been done using a 100L without tubes or extenders. I would have expected more close-up - or am I wrong ?

In theory, you are quite right. However, most of these skittish butterflies will not tolerate having the 100L shoved into their faces, at MFD That was the reason I added a tube + the 1.4x TC, to get some more working distance, without giving up the max magnification ratio. And the tube was necessary in this case to be able to mount the TC to the 100L.

The pictures looks nice but the difference with and without the tube and extender is not clear to me.

Well, that was also the purpose, I believe: To demonstrate that there is no important difference in IQ, with/without tubes, for reasonable magnifications (

Cheersm,
Eyvind
--
http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Hi

I have just looked at some of your pictures in your gallery. I was transferred to a picture of a butterfly but also see many flowers. To be honest I see no pictures that could not have been done using a 100L without tubes or extenders. I would have expected more close-up - or am I wrong ?

In theory, you are quite right. However, most of these skittish butterflies will not tolerate having the 100L shoved into their faces, at MFD That was the reason I added a tube + the 1.4x TC, to get some more working distance, without giving up the max magnification ratio. And the tube was necessary in this case to be able to mount the TC to the 100L.

Just to clarify for other readers - the TC increases the magnification, and therefore achieves the same magnification at a greater working distance. The tube, on the other hand, allows closer focusing and therefore more magnification but at the expense of working distance.

As you said the tube is needed to work around the 100L's incompatibility with Canon Extenders - I just wanted to clarify that there is no other benefit at magnifications of less than 1:1, or 1.4:1 with the TC.

The pictures looks nice but the difference with and without the tube and extender is not clear to me.

Well, that was also the purpose, I believe: To demonstrate that there is no important difference in IQ, with/without tubes, for reasonable magnifications (

In theory a macro lens should give better IQ without the extension tube, because the whole point of the complex floating element construction of modern macro lenses is to reduce the aberrations which occur when focusing the whole optic as a unit, as with tubes. Whether the difference is apparent in a typical shot is another matter of course.

 

[photonius]

I'm considering getting the 25II extension tube for my 100f/2.8L. Can anyone provide samples or a link that compares results with/without it.............

The reviews seem to qualify it as a great accessory but many of them are from users that are converting an existing non-macro lens like the 50f/1.4 which I don't foresee doing.

So is it a worthwhile addition to the 100f/2.8L macro..........??
--
Regards,
Hank

Others have already commented on how extension tubes work,
here is another link, also comparing with close-up lenses.
http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Close-up+%26+Macro

The point is, with 25mm you will not get much extra magnification on a 100mm lens. And the Canon tubes are quite expensive. The Kenko (EF-S version if you have crop) set is a good set and gives you a lot more possibilities, and when stacked (68mm), much better extra magnification.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[Hank3152]

Thanks for your interesting link........I will consider Kenko as well..........
--
Regards,
Hank

 

[Hank3152]

..........with Kenko DG tubes I read where you lose AF with EF-S lenses.........so I'm assuming you don't with EF lenses. Do the Canon tubes function the same way?
--
Regards,
Hank