Telescoping macro extension tube?

[Elite83]

I was playing around with macro photography the other day by using a piece of rolled up black construction paper by using it as a extension tube for my Vivitar 75-300 tele.

That got me to thinking, why don't they sell/how hard would it be to make a telescoping, or adjustable extension tube for macro photography? I realize it's uses the same principal as a bellows, but bellows are so bulky and expensive. And using 'regular' extension tubes require setting a fixed distance between the lens and camera, and if you want to change it you have to remove everything and add or replace other tubes etc. etc. resulting in so much more work. Plus, if you're in a dusty environment it means exposing the sensor more times.

So you know how those legacy zoom/telephoto lenses work? How you slide them straight in or out to increase or decrease magnification? Why couldn't they invent an adjustable, or telescoping macro extension tube that used the same mechanical design? Only, without the glass elements. So for example, if they made a 3-inch extension tube, it could slide out to roughly 6 inches, you see what I mean?

I must be overlooking something... or a product like this would already exist, am I correct?

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I must be overlooking something... or a product like this would already exist, am I correct?

http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/telescopic-auto-tube.html

--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]

 

[Elite83]

Searched all of ebay and only turned up 1 result... they seem awfully rare, any cause as to why? They seem quite useful.

 

[vw671]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0054EPPPW/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_ap_am_us?ie=UTF8

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Searched all of ebay and only turned up 1 result... they seem awfully rare, any cause as to why? They seem quite useful.

I think they fall into the "seemed like a good idea at the time" category. They are less flexible - in all senses! - than a bellows, and bigger and heavier than normal tubes.

I'm sure they had their few devotees but they were never popular and I doubt that all that many were ever sold.

--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]

 

[wll]

That is a very cool idea.

to bad someone does not make it in a e-mount !

wll

 

[D Cox]

I was playing around with macro photography the other day by using a piece of rolled up black construction paper by using it as a extension tube for my Vivitar 75-300 tele.

That got me to thinking, why don't they sell/how hard would it be to make a telescoping, or adjustable extension tube for macro photography? I realize it's uses the same principal as a bellows, but bellows are so bulky and expensive. And using 'regular' extension tubes require setting a fixed distance between the lens and camera, and if you want to change it you have to remove everything and add or replace other tubes etc. etc. resulting in so much more work. Plus, if you're in a dusty environment it means exposing the sensor more times.

So you know how those legacy zoom/telephoto lenses work? How you slide them straight in or out to increase or decrease magnification? Why couldn't they invent an adjustable, or telescoping macro extension tube that used the same mechanical design? Only, without the glass elements. So for example, if they made a 3-inch extension tube, it could slide out to roughly 6 inches, you see what I mean?

I must be overlooking something... or a product like this would already exist, am I correct?

Not quite what you want, but I have a Topcon helical focussing tube that extends by 30mm. This gives a range from infinity to about half life size with a 65mm Elmar lens head.

I don't think a telescoping tube could be made rigid enough. On the whole, a lightweight bellows such as the BPM model is more convenient. Or, for handheld work, a Raynox close-up lens, which will give faster shutter speeds than tubes or bellows.

 

[D Cox]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0054EPPPW/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_ap_am_us?ie=UTF8

That bellows seems to be designed to move the lens. What you want to do in practice is keep the lens still and focus by moving the camera. The BPM bellows allows this, or the more heavy-duty Nikon or Olympus models.

Ideally the bellows should incorporate a focussing rail too, but this can be a separate item. In fact, Fotodiox do one that looks good in the pictures and would make their bellows much more useful.

 

[Elite83]

I may actually look at getting that Raynox close-up lens instead of bellows. It looks pretty good, and since the NEX-5 doesn't support external flashes, and I have no desire in getting the 'upgraded' NEX flash to use slower shutter speeds with a bellows, it may be a good solution for me.

Has anyone here actually used one or own one?

 

[TonyCu]

I use the Pentax Helicoid Extension Tube K:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/94071072@N00/6846711886/

Other manufacturers made these as well. It puzzles me as well why no one seems to make these for current cameras. The construction quality would probably make them very expensive nowadays.

--
TonyC

 

[KM Legacy]

The Olympus OM telescoping extension tube was very rigid, and lighter and more compact than a bellows. Olympus also made some great true macro lenses without focusing mounts which work well on that tube. However, most consumers gravitated instead to macro lenses which focused from infinity to 1:1 without accessories. The OM tube and macro lenses are so good that people hold onto them, and they bring high prices at auction.

 

[nspur]

At a UK camera fair yesterday I bought a Teleplus MC 7 2 x telephoto converter plus built-in zoom macro tube. It's designed to take a standard 50 mm mechanical focus lens (the one I bought is for the Contax/Yashica mount) so your f1.4 lens becomes a 100 mm f2.8 lens and you can use the zoom to get up to 1:1 macro. £30. I'm using it on a NEX 7 with an adapter where it has a FOV of 150 mm.

These aren't that rare and were made for lots of camera mounts
--
Nick Spurrier

 

[Jan Steinman]

I think they fall into the "seemed like a good idea at the time" category. They are less flexible - in all senses! - than a bellows, and bigger and heavier than normal tubes.

I'm sure they had their few devotees but they were never popular and I doubt that all that many were ever sold.

Sorry to revive a zombie thread (I'm sure someone will give me grief), but I find the Olympus Telescoping Extension Tube to be incredibly useful. I call it my "field-hardened bellows!"

The "less flexible" bit is debatable. The "twist-slide-twist" mechanism is so much quicker than the typical "twist, twist, twist…" of a long helicoid or bellows.

In 2012, people were complaining that they were hard to find, but there seems to be a better supply these days. They show up on evilBay for under $100 frequently, and I got an "UGly" one from KEH that works perfectly for just $39.

In fact, I love this thing so much that I got extras! One, I'm in the process of attaching a µ4/3rds mount directly to it, so I can use it without a wobbly adapter.

For the other one, I bought an inexpensive µ4/3rds auto extension tube that sends the electronic contacts through. I'm in the process of putting half of it on either end of the TET, with a coily cord it-between, which will let me use the TET on autofocus lenses.

 

[Paul Goelz]

I have been thinking along the same lines lately. I have been using my SEL19135 on macro rings with great results but dislike the need to remove the ring(s) if I need to focus to infinity. Trying to design it in my head, I realized that one issue would be the fact that it would be difficult to impossible to design an adjustable macro ring for use with an APSC lens on an APSC body. To get to infinity would require the ring to collapse to zero length. however, it would be a piece of cake to design one to use an FE lens on an APSC body since an FE lens needs to be spaced 26.5mm from the body of an APSC camera. Too bad no one makes one any more. Savage had one (not for Sony E) but it has been discontinued. And it didn't collapse to 26.5mm anyway.

Paul

 

[Jan Steinman]

… it would be a piece of cake to design one to use an FE lens on an APSC body… Too bad no one makes one any more.

Yea, if you want a telescoping tube and to retain infinity focus, the Olympus TET and their 135/4.5 macro may be the only game in town.

I briefly toyed with the idea of rolling my own, using nesting carbon-fibre tubing . But it would be a pain to do it with a ~26mm minimum extension. And locking mechanism? The vendor's locks take up 26mm or so by themselves, so you'd be down to duct-tape, which defeats the "fast and easy" advantage.



Just get the Olympus one and adapt it to your favourite mounts. The standard adapter parts are pretty cheap, or if you're handy enough to drill and tap 2mm threaded holes, you can change the mounts on the TET to your liking.

--
Jan Steinman, d.b.a. Bytesmiths — http://www.bytesmiths.com
Building a better tomorrow — http://www.ecoreality.org

 

[Pixel Pooper]

I have been thinking along the same lines lately. I have been using my SEL19135 on macro rings with great results but dislike the need to remove the ring(s) if I need to focus to infinity. Trying to design it in my head, I realized that one issue would be the fact that it would be difficult to impossible to design an adjustable macro ring for use with an APSC lens on an APSC body. To get to infinity would require the ring to collapse to zero length. however, it would be a piece of cake to design one to use an FE lens on an APSC body since an FE lens needs to be spaced 26.5mm from the body of an APSC camera. Too bad no one makes one any more. Savage had one (not for Sony E) but it has been discontinued. And it didn't collapse to 26.5mm anyway.

Paul

FE lenses are just full frame E mount lenses, they have the same mount and spacing as crop E mount lenses. You will never get infinity focus with an extension tube attached using E mount lenses, but your idea could work with adapted SLR lenses as they are spaced farther from the sensor.

The other problem with an adjustable tube for E mount of that you need to maintain electrical contact between the body and lens. Not impossible, but it would complicate the design.

 

[Jan Steinman]

"you need to maintain electrical contact between the body and lens"

Woa, really? Really?

Glad I never got the Sony bug, then. I'm having a gas adapting any hunk of glass I come across to µ4/3rds. I often fabricate my own adapters.

I'd be really disappointed if an old, legacy, non-electronic lens would not work with my multi-kilobuck camera body, because it doesn't have a chip on its shoulder.

 

[Pixel Pooper]

"you need to maintain electrical contact between the body and lens"

Woa, really? Really?

Glad I never got the Sony bug, then. I'm having a gas adapting any hunk of glass I come across to µ4/3rds. I often fabricate my own adapters.

I'd be really disappointed if an old, legacy, non-electronic lens would not work with my multi-kilobuck camera body, because it doesn't have a chip on its shoulder.

I was talking about using E mount lenses. Non electronic lenses work fine.

 

[Jan Steinman]

I was talking about using E mount lenses. Non electronic lenses work fine.

Cool. I couldn't believe that Sony would do something so stupid!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I was talking about using E mount lenses. Non electronic lenses work fine.

Cool. I couldn't believe that Sony would do something so stupid!

They didn't. You can adapt a toilet roll to your camera if you want!

But don't forget the menu option that enables the camera to work with "no" lens, ie without it's electronics recognising a lens.