Extension Tube EF 25 II

[Wyville2]

I have been out of this hobby for a while, but recently picked up my 7D again and started working on taking pictures for another hobby. My main lens is the EF-S 17-55 and I have found I would like to get in closer to capture more details and different angles. I was wondering if it would be at all useful to consider the EF 25 II extension tube in order to keep to a budget, or if I would be much better off saving up for a proper macro (eg. EF-S 60mm). Has anyone tried the EF 25 II with the 17-55?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I have been out of this hobby for a while, but recently picked up my 7D again and started working on taking pictures for another hobby. My main lens is the EF-S 17-55 and I have found I would like to get in closer to capture more details and different angles. I was wondering if it would be at all useful to consider the EF 25 II extension tube in order to keep to a budget, or if I would be much better off saving up for a proper macro (eg. EF-S 60mm). Has anyone tried the EF 25 II with the 17-55?

Definitely the macro lens. There are at least three problems with the extension tube idea:

- The subject will be very close to the lens at maximum magnification. Just how much of a problem this is would depend on the subject, but at the very least it will cause light problems, and it may scare of any living subjects.

- The lens is not corrected for focusing so close. The saving grace is that most macro photography uses small apertures so any problems such as spherical aberration would be reduced.

- Both zooming and focusing would no longer work as they should. They tend to get jumbled up, with extreme 'focus breathing' (i.e. zooming when focusing) and focusing distance shifting wildly when zooming.

I have no experience of the 17-55, but the above would be true for any zoom lens, especially using such a large tube in relation to the focal length.

(I'm now expecting somebody to post a wonderful macro shot taken with this setup. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it is an unsatisfactory solution.)

 

[Wyville2]

Definitely the macro lens. There are at least three problems with the extension tube idea:

- The subject will be very close to the lens at maximum magnification. Just how much of a problem this is would depend on the subject, but at the very least it will cause light problems, and it may scare of any living subjects.

- The lens is not corrected for focusing so close. The saving grace is that most macro photography uses small apertures so any problems such as spherical aberration would be reduced.

- Both zooming and focusing would no longer work as they should. They tend to get jumbled up, with extreme 'focus breathing' (i.e. zooming when focusing) and focusing distance shifting wildly when zooming.

I have no experience of the 17-55, but the above would be true for any zoom lens, especially using such a large tube in relation to the focal length.

(I'm now expecting somebody to post a wonderful macro shot taken with this setup. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it is an unsatisfactory solution.)

 

[Andy Blanchard]

The subject it static (gear of another kind), so not much of an issue there. The lens correction and focus/zooming issues might be more annoying, especially since I am hoping to pick up on stop motion photography again soon as well.

Well, maybe someone can indeed wow with a great shot using such a setup, otherwise I will need to reconsider my priorities and maybe save up for a decent macro. Always wanted one anyway. ;-)

If you're serious about macro then you'll definitely want a true macro lens, but to get started with macro on the cheap extension tubes are a reasonable enough way to go. They'll generally work better with lenses with longer focal lengths though as they typically have more working room between subject and lens to play with.

I'd avoid the Canon tubes though; ultimately an extension tube is just two sets of contacts, a ring of metal, and some air. You can get a third party set of three tubes from the likes of Kenko that work just as well and give you a lot more flexibility for a fraction of the price of a single Canon tube. If your subjects are static, then you might find that a set of macro focussing rails (make macro focussing *much* easier, regardless of method) and a set of tubes is all you need.

Andy

 

[Wyville2]

If you're serious about macro then you'll definitely want a true macro lens, but to get started with macro on the cheap extension tubes are a reasonable enough way to go. They'll generally work better with lenses with longer focal lengths though as they typically have more working room between subject and lens to play with.

I'd avoid the Canon tubes though; ultimately an extension tube is just two sets of contacts, a ring of metal, and some air. You can get a third party set of three tubes from the likes of Kenko that work just as well and give you a lot more flexibility for a fraction of the price of a single Canon tube. If your subjects are static, then you might find that a set of macro focussing rails (make macro focussing *much* easier, regardless of method) and a set of tubes is all you need.

Andy

Thanks!

I have seen the third party sets around and that might be a low cost option to just experiment a little without too much (financial) risk. I have the 100-400L (V1) as well, so I could experiment with both while I save up for a macro lens.

Macro focusing rails are interesting, but I still need to look into all that more carefully. Because I want to do stop motion photography again, it would be incredibly useful to have rails of some kind anyway. Much will depend on how much space I have to set up the scenes and move the camera around. Something to think about!

 

[brightcolours]

I have been out of this hobby for a while, but recently picked up my 7D again and started working on taking pictures for another hobby. My main lens is the EF-S 17-55 and I have found I would like to get in closer to capture more details and different angles. I was wondering if it would be at all useful to consider the EF 25 II extension tube in order to keep to a budget, or if I would be much better off saving up for a proper macro (eg. EF-S 60mm). Has anyone tried the EF 25 II with the 17-55?

Definitely the macro lens. There are at least three problems with the extension tube idea:

- The subject will be very close to the lens at maximum magnification. Just how much of a problem this is would depend on the subject, but at the very least it will cause light problems, and it may scare of any living subjects.

The lens will be about the same distance as a macro lens at the same focal length and the same magnification.

- The lens is not corrected for focusing so close. The saving grace is that most macro photography uses small apertures so any problems such as spherical aberration would be reduced.

The lens probably will do FINE focussing closer.

- Both zooming and focusing would no longer work as they should. They tend to get jumbled up, with extreme 'focus breathing' (i.e. zooming when focusing) and focusing distance shifting wildly when zooming.

And when you don't zoom, there will not be an issue.

I have no experience of the 17-55, but the above would be true for any zoom lens, especially using such a large tube in relation to the focal length.

That I agree with, 25mm seems a bit much. 12mm should be better manageable.

(I'm now expecting somebody to post a wonderful macro shot taken with this setup. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it is an unsatisfactory solution.)

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I have been out of this hobby for a while, but recently picked up my 7D again and started working on taking pictures for another hobby. My main lens is the EF-S 17-55 and I have found I would like to get in closer to capture more details and different angles. I was wondering if it would be at all useful to consider the EF 25 II extension tube in order to keep to a budget, or if I would be much better off saving up for a proper macro (eg. EF-S 60mm). Has anyone tried the EF 25 II with the 17-55?

Definitely the macro lens. There are at least three problems with the extension tube idea:

- The subject will be very close to the lens at maximum magnification. Just how much of a problem this is would depend on the subject, but at the very least it will cause light problems, and it may scare of any living subjects.

The lens will be about the same distance as a macro lens at the same focal length and the same magnification.

No, the problem is the bulk of the lens compared with its focal length. Think of it this way - the lens itself occupies some of what would be 'working distance'.

- The lens is not corrected for focusing so close. The saving grace is that most macro photography uses small apertures so any problems such as spherical aberration would be reduced.

The lens probably will do FINE focussing closer.

- Both zooming and focusing would no longer work as they should. They tend to get jumbled up, with extreme 'focus breathing' (i.e. zooming when focusing) and focusing distance shifting wildly when zooming.

And when you don't zoom, there will not be an issue.

Sure - keep it at 55 mm, and accept that focusing/framing may be a bit quirky. I have actually used this technique with my 70-200/4L IS to shoot flying insects, with some success. But for general use I don't like it. As per my closing comment, I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it's not a good solution.

As a generalisation, extension tubes are better for primes, which are typically smaller so the working distance is better, and the zooming issue doesn't arise.

Zooms work better with supplementary close-up lenses like the Canon 500D/250D, and the Raynox 150 and 250. However the 17-55 has a 77 mm filter thread so you need a large, expensive one. What's more, the 2-dioptre 500D is not powerful enough for a short lens and the 4-dioptre 250D is only made in 52 mm and 58 mm diameters. (It might be possible to use a 58 mm 250D with a step-down ring, if it doesn't vignette too much.) I don't know the Raynox options from memory.

I have no experience of the 17-55, but the above would be true for any zoom lens, especially using such a large tube in relation to the focal length.

That I agree with, 25mm seems a bit much. 12mm should be better manageable.

I checked the Canon web site - it quotes 0.45x-0.23x with the 12 mm tube but then warns that the extension tube is only compatible at the tele end, so that must be 0.45x at MFD and 0.23x with the lens set to infinity focus. This raises another issue - with the tube fitted, you have a very narrow range of actual focusing distances. With 0.23x as your minimum magnification you can't even take a step back to include some environment with a butterfly shot.

(I'm now expecting somebody to post a wonderful macro shot taken with this setup. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it is an unsatisfactory solution.)

 

[brightcolours]

I have been out of this hobby for a while, but recently picked up my 7D again and started working on taking pictures for another hobby. My main lens is the EF-S 17-55 and I have found I would like to get in closer to capture more details and different angles. I was wondering if it would be at all useful to consider the EF 25 II extension tube in order to keep to a budget, or if I would be much better off saving up for a proper macro (eg. EF-S 60mm). Has anyone tried the EF 25 II with the 17-55?

Definitely the macro lens. There are at least three problems with the extension tube idea:

- The subject will be very close to the lens at maximum magnification. Just how much of a problem this is would depend on the subject, but at the very least it will cause light problems, and it may scare of any living subjects.

The lens will be about the same distance as a macro lens at the same focal length and the same magnification.

No, the problem is the bulk of the lens compared with its focal length. Think of it this way - the lens itself occupies some of what would be 'working distance'.

- The lens is not corrected for focusing so close. The saving grace is that most macro photography uses small apertures so any problems such as spherical aberration would be reduced.

The lens probably will do FINE focussing closer.

- Both zooming and focusing would no longer work as they should. They tend to get jumbled up, with extreme 'focus breathing' (i.e. zooming when focusing) and focusing distance shifting wildly when zooming.

And when you don't zoom, there will not be an issue.

Sure - keep it at 55 mm, and accept that focusing/framing may be a bit quirky. I have actually used this technique with my 70-200/4L IS to shoot flying insects, with some success. But for general use I don't like it. As per my closing comment, I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it's not a good solution.

I use the 12mm extension tube on my 70-200mm f4 L USM all the time too, of course only at 200mm (makes little sense to use it at 70mm..).

As a generalisation, extension tubes are better for primes, which are typically smaller so the working distance is better, and the zooming issue doesn't arise.

Zooms work better with supplementary close-up lenses like the Canon 500D/250D, and the Raynox 150 and 250. However the 17-55 has a 77 mm filter thread so you need a large, expensive one. What's more, the 2-dioptre 500D is not powerful enough for a short lens and the 4-dioptre 250D is only made in 52 mm and 58 mm diameters. (It might be possible to use a 58 mm 250D with a step-down ring, if it doesn't vignette too much.) I don't know the Raynox options from memory.

I have no experience of the 17-55, but the above would be true for any zoom lens, especially using such a large tube in relation to the focal length.

That I agree with, 25mm seems a bit much. 12mm should be better manageable.

I checked the Canon web site - it quotes 0.45x-0.23x with the 12 mm tube but then warns that the extension tube is only compatible at the tele end, so that must be 0.45x at MFD and 0.23x with the lens set to infinity focus. This raises another issue - with the tube fitted, you have a very narrow range of actual focusing distances. With 0.23x as your minimum magnification you can't even take a step back to include some environment with a butterfly shot.

Yes, that is how the extension tube works with short focal lengths. 25mm will be unmanageable.

(I'm now expecting somebody to post a wonderful macro shot taken with this setup. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it is an unsatisfactory solution.)

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Sure - keep it at 55 mm, and accept that focusing/framing may be a bit quirky. I have actually used this technique with my 70-200/4L IS to shoot flying insects, with some success. But for general use I don't like it. As per my closing comment, I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it's not a good solution.

I use the 12mm extension tube on my 70-200mm f4 L USM all the time too, of course only at 200mm (makes little sense to use it at 70mm..).

Interestingly the maximum magnification at 70 mm is quite similar to the magnification at 200 mm - because the tube has more effect at the shorter focal length. Working distance is greater at 200 mm of course.

(Edit: actually when I discovered this it was probably with a longer tube. I have a Kenko set. With the 12 mm only there is probably more magnification at 200 mm.)

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

 

[Wyville2]

Sure - keep it at 55 mm, and accept that focusing/framing may be a bit quirky. I have actually used this technique with my 70-200/4L IS to shoot flying insects, with some success. But for general use I don't like it. As per my closing comment, I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it's not a good solution.

I use the 12mm extension tube on my 70-200mm f4 L USM all the time too, of course only at 200mm (makes little sense to use it at 70mm..).

Interestingly the maximum magnification at 70 mm is quite similar to the magnification at 200 mm - because the tube has more effect at the shorter focal length. Working distance is greater at 200 mm of course.

(Edit: actually when I discovered this it was probably with a longer tube. I have a Kenko set. With the 12 mm only there is probably more magnification at 200 mm.)

 

[cjb]

Start with the Kenko extension tube set. They work perfect and are well made. Start your exploration of the Macro photographic space with those. They will work with all your lenses. You can learn all about proper camera support, handling super-shallow depth of field, focus stacking, and microadjustments using just the tubes.

If you find yourself running into issues, like field curvature when photographing flat subjects (e.g. stamps), then consider a dedicated macro lens.

Close-up lenses are an interesting third method. They are nice because they pack small and are convenient but only the corrected lenses are worth your trouble (like the Canon 250D or 500D).

 

[Wyville2]

Start with the Kenko extension tube set. They work perfect and are well made. Start your exploration of the Macro photographic space with those. They will work with all your lenses. You can learn all about proper camera support, handling super-shallow depth of field, focus stacking, and microadjustments using just the tubes.

If you find yourself running into issues, like field curvature when photographing flat subjects (e.g. stamps), then consider a dedicated macro lens.

Close-up lenses are an interesting third method. They are nice because they pack small and are convenient but only the corrected lenses are worth your trouble (like the Canon 250D or 500D).

Thanks! The close-up lenses look pretty interesting, although quite expensive. Do those give fewer issues than the extension tubes? Might allow for a little more versatility in the compositions I can achieve with the 17-55 without going all in with macro.

 

[cjb]

I consider close-up lenses as a third choice. They are convenient and pack small. That's pretty much their only advantage. And since you pick one size, they really are intended for use only on matching lenses. That's without getting into adapter rings, which get stuck, and so on.

Really, my advice still stands: Start with the extension tube set from Kenko. It's inexpensive. It has no optical elements to get scratched. They can stack for different magnifications. They work with all your lenses. It allows you to start your exploration of the space of macro photography, which was the sense I got from your OP. If you get serious about macro, you'll want a set anyway.

 

[brightcolours]

Start with the Kenko extension tube set. They work perfect and are well made. Start your exploration of the Macro photographic space with those. They will work with all your lenses. You can learn all about proper camera support, handling super-shallow depth of field, focus stacking, and microadjustments using just the tubes.

If you find yourself running into issues, like field curvature when photographing flat subjects (e.g. stamps), then consider a dedicated macro lens.

Close-up lenses are an interesting third method. They are nice because they pack small and are convenient but only the corrected lenses are worth your trouble (like the Canon 250D or 500D).

Thanks! The close-up lenses look pretty interesting, although quite expensive. Do those give fewer issues than the extension tubes? Might allow for a little more versatility in the compositions I can achieve with the 17-55 without going all in with macro.

Those close up lenses only really are worthwhile on l tele lenses (like the 55-250mm for instance), and don't do too much on a 17-55mm....

 

[Wyville2]

Start with the Kenko extension tube set. They work perfect and are well made. Start your exploration of the Macro photographic space with those. They will work with all your lenses. You can learn all about proper camera support, handling super-shallow depth of field, focus stacking, and microadjustments using just the tubes.

If you find yourself running into issues, like field curvature when photographing flat subjects (e.g. stamps), then consider a dedicated macro lens.

Close-up lenses are an interesting third method. They are nice because they pack small and are convenient but only the corrected lenses are worth your trouble (like the Canon 250D or 500D).

Thanks! The close-up lenses look pretty interesting, although quite expensive. Do those give fewer issues than the extension tubes? Might allow for a little more versatility in the compositions I can achieve with the 17-55 without going all in with macro.

Those close up lenses only really are worthwhile on l tele lenses (like the 55-250mm for instance), and don't do too much on a 17-55mm....

Thanks!

 

[Wyville2]

I consider close-up lenses as a third choice. They are convenient and pack small. That's pretty much their only advantage. And since you pick one size, they really are intended for use only on matching lenses. That's without getting into adapter rings, which get stuck, and so on.

Really, my advice still stands: Start with the extension tube set from Kenko. It's inexpensive. It has no optical elements to get scratched. They can stack for different magnifications. They work with all your lenses. It allows you to start your exploration of the space of macro photography, which was the sense I got from your OP. If you get serious about macro, you'll want a set anyway.

Thanks!