If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
The price is similiar both ways. What are the trade-offs? This is for a
Canon Digital Rebel XT 350D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
default wrote:
The price is similiar both ways. Depends on what lens is in front of the tube. Some work great, some not so great. What are the trade-offs? It depends on which diopter. The really good 2 element diopters can work really good and you don't lose light like you do with a tube. Also a zoom can be used to control image magnification with a diopter which is nice. They seem to work well with tele lenses which gives you more camera to subject distance. Can you take your camera and lens to a store and try both out and buy which works best (that's what I did)? If you're trying to "shop on line" to save money, hard to say which would produce better results for your use. -- Stacey |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
Thanks Stacey.
I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. However diopter filters seem to be somewhat maligned in these newsgroups and some photography websites. I was wondering if I would have been better off getting EF12-II or EF25-II extension tubes instead which I could still do. Does the larger image circle produced from standing the lens off the camera cause problematic reflections inside the camera? Especially for the 70-300 which is designed for full frame cameras I would be concerned. Buying a dedicated macro lense is a bit out of my budget presently but it is quite fun to see the microscopic details in items that you don't normally see so close and not just for flowers and bugs. There are some very cool photos possible from being so close to things. "Stacey" wrote in message ... default wrote: The price is similiar both ways. Depends on what lens is in front of the tube. Some work great, some not so great. What are the trade-offs? It depends on which diopter. The really good 2 element diopters can work really good and you don't lose light like you do with a tube. Also a zoom can be used to control image magnification with a diopter which is nice. They seem to work well with tele lenses which gives you more camera to subject distance. Can you take your camera and lens to a store and try both out and buy which works best (that's what I did)? If you're trying to "shop on line" to save money, hard to say which would produce better results for your use. -- Stacey |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
In article MFkzf.375200$ki.357027@pd7tw2no, default
writes "Stacey" wrote in message ... default wrote: The price is similiar both ways. Depends on what lens is in front of the tube. Some work great, some not so great. What are the trade-offs? It depends on which diopter. The really good 2 element diopters can work really good and you don't lose light like you do with a tube. Also a zoom can be used to control image magnification with a diopter which is nice. They seem to work well with tele lenses which gives you more camera to subject distance. Can you take your camera and lens to a store and try both out and buy which works best (that's what I did)? If you're trying to "shop on line" to save money, hard to say which would produce better results for your use. Thanks Stacey. I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. However diopter filters seem to be somewhat maligned in these newsgroups and some photography websites. I was wondering if I would have been better off getting EF12-II or EF25-II extension tubes instead which I could still do. Does the larger image circle produced from standing the lens off the camera cause problematic reflections inside the camera? Especially for the 70-300 which is designed for full frame cameras I would be concerned. Buying a dedicated macro lense is a bit out of my budget presently but it is quite fun to see the microscopic details in items that you don't normally see so close and not just for flowers and bugs. There are some very cool photos possible from being so close to things. My plan is to get a macro lens since it is only about twice the price of a pair of Canon tubes, and focuses from 20cm (~1:1) to infinity so it can be kept on the camera when walking about in the field. I have used tubes for still life on a table where illumination and set up time (selecting the appropriate combination of tubes for the field of view) is not a problem, but want to move on from that. -- Ian G8ILZ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
Ian
what macro lens are you considering? I have both tubes and diopters and use both dependant on the circumstances. However, I am about the buy the Tamron 90mm Macro for sheer round versatility and quality. I have read nothing but good reports on this lens. In Oz it retails for around $620 while the tubes (one of each) would be around $400 if I stick with the Canon set. Its the low light capacity and quality of image that makes the Tamron stand out for the bucks when comparing with others that I have looked at. I look forward to your views. regards Don from Down Under. "Prometheus" wrote in message ... In article MFkzf.375200$ki.357027@pd7tw2no, default writes "Stacey" wrote in message ... default wrote: The price is similiar both ways. Depends on what lens is in front of the tube. Some work great, some not so great. What are the trade-offs? It depends on which diopter. The really good 2 element diopters can work really good and you don't lose light like you do with a tube. Also a zoom can be used to control image magnification with a diopter which is nice. They seem to work well with tele lenses which gives you more camera to subject distance. Can you take your camera and lens to a store and try both out and buy which works best (that's what I did)? If you're trying to "shop on line" to save money, hard to say which would produce better results for your use. Thanks Stacey. I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. However diopter filters seem to be somewhat maligned in these newsgroups and some photography websites. I was wondering if I would have been better off getting EF12-II or EF25-II extension tubes instead which I could still do. Does the larger image circle produced from standing the lens off the camera cause problematic reflections inside the camera? Especially for the 70-300 which is designed for full frame cameras I would be concerned. Buying a dedicated macro lense is a bit out of my budget presently but it is quite fun to see the microscopic details in items that you don't normally see so close and not just for flowers and bugs. There are some very cool photos possible from being so close to things. My plan is to get a macro lens since it is only about twice the price of a pair of Canon tubes, and focuses from 20cm (~1:1) to infinity so it can be kept on the camera when walking about in the field. I have used tubes for still life on a table where illumination and set up time (selecting the appropriate combination of tubes for the field of view) is not a problem, but want to move on from that. -- Ian G8ILZ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
"default" wrote:
I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. .... some photography websites. I was wondering if I would have been better off getting EF12-II or EF25-II extension tubes instead which I could still do. .... Results, with either the diopters or extension (tubes or a bellows), will depend greatly on the lense used, and on just how much magnification you want to get. You'll get more functionality from a set of tubes, and that will be more true as the magnification you typically want is increased. You'll get even more from a bellows. But as the functionality is increased, the convenience of use is decreased! All of the convenience of auto aperture and metering plus auto focus is lost using a typical bellows setup. Hence if the diopters do what you want, that is just as good as tubes. And if tubes do what you want, that is just as good as a bellows. But if you want to do everything, bite the bullet and get a set of bellows. (Think in terms of an inexpensive m42 screw mount bellows and using adapters. It will cut the cost significantly.) Buying a dedicated macro lense is a bit out of my budget presently but it is quite fun to see the microscopic details in items that you don't normally see so close and not just for flowers and bugs. There are some very cool photos possible from being so close to things. Even more so than the above, with dedicated lenses you pay for convenience of use, not functionality. A typical lense described as "macro" is actually just a close focus lense. It is not a flat field lense (which may not make any difference). But it is not optically optimized for close focus either. Better macro lenses will be both, but you'll pay a lot more for them if they also have all of the various features (auto focus, aperture and metering). On the other hand, an optically *really* *good* macro lense need not cost much, if you can do without the conveniences. (And note that if you use a bellows you probably won't have those conveniences anyway.) A 75 to 120 mm enlarging lense (with a 39mm to 42mm adapter, and then a 42mm to camera body adapter) makes a great macro lense. To be absolute best, it should be mounted with a reversing ring. Good examples would be Nikon's El-Nikkor and Rodenstock's Rodagon lenses. A typical used one in good condition goes for $50-70 on eBay. A whole kit including bellows, adapters, and both a ~50mm and a ~105mm lense, could easily cost less than $150 if you wait for good prices. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macrodiopter filters.
default wrote:
Thanks Stacey. I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. Snip I just wonder why no one has asked what 70-300 lens he has that goes to 2x life size. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
In article , Dave
writes default wrote: Thanks Stacey. I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. Snip I just wonder why no one has asked what 70-300 lens he has that goes to 2x life size. I must say that I wondered that, if it does then why bother with using tubes to get a mere 1:1? -- Ian G8ILZ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
Sorry about that, the 70-300 can magnify to 1:2, or 1/2 life size only. I
had the ratio backward. If it went to double life size, i certainly wouldnt need tubes or diopters. "Dave" wrote in message ... default wrote: Thanks Stacey. I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. Snip I just wonder why no one has asked what 70-300 lens he has that goes to 2x life size. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.
In article , Don
writes "Prometheus" wrote in message ... In article MFkzf.375200$ki.357027@pd7tw2no, default writes "Stacey" wrote in message ... default wrote: The price is similiar both ways. Depends on what lens is in front of the tube. Some work great, some not so great. What are the trade-offs? It depends on which diopter. The really good 2 element diopters can work really good and you don't lose light like you do with a tube. Also a zoom can be used to control image magnification with a diopter which is nice. They seem to work well with tele lenses which gives you more camera to subject distance. Can you take your camera and lens to a store and try both out and buy which works best (that's what I did)? If you're trying to "shop on line" to save money, hard to say which would produce better results for your use. Thanks Stacey. I bought some 58mm diopter filters and have tried them with both my 18-55 and my 70-300mm lenses. The 70-300 already could reach 2:1 without filters. So far they are a lot of fun and seem to be working great. I haven't noticed distortions in the pictures and they seem nice and bright and sharp. However diopter filters seem to be somewhat maligned in these newsgroups and some photography websites. I was wondering if I would have been better off getting EF12-II or EF25-II extension tubes instead which I could still do. Does the larger image circle produced from standing the lens off the camera cause problematic reflections inside the camera? Especially for the 70-300 which is designed for full frame cameras I would be concerned. Buying a dedicated macro lense is a bit out of my budget presently but it is quite fun to see the microscopic details in items that you don't normally see so close and not just for flowers and bugs. There are some very cool photos possible from being so close to things. My plan is to get a macro lens since it is only about twice the price of a pair of Canon tubes, and focuses from 20cm (~1:1) to infinity so it can be kept on the camera when walking about in the field. I have used tubes for still life on a table where illumination and set up time (selecting the appropriate combination of tubes for the field of view) is not a problem, but want to move on from that. what macro lens are you considering? I have both tubes and diopters and use both dependant on the circumstances. However, I am about the buy the Tamron 90mm Macro for sheer round versatility and quality. I have read nothing but good reports on this lens. In Oz it retails for around $620 while the tubes (one of each) would be around $400 if I stick with the Canon set. Its the low light capacity and quality of image that makes the Tamron stand out for the bucks when comparing with others that I have looked at. I look forward to your views. regards Don from Down Under. I had not looked at the Tamron 90mm macro, I was considering the Canon EF-S 60 f/2.8 macro lens which is 320 GBP, the Tamron 90 mm is 370 GBP. The Canon tubes (12 & 25 are 60 & 100 GBP (besides I think I would need two 12mm and one 25mm to achieve 1:1 which would bring the cost up to 240GBP); Jessops market a set of three which offer 1:1 for 75 GBP. If I use tubes I would need a sheet or stick marked with the dimensions covered by each combination of tubes. Whilst tubes are a lower cost option they are really only suited to bench use with restricted subjects due to the time taken to change the configuration; supplementary lenses are quicker to change, will impose similar restrictions on subject, and introduce some degradation; I favour a lens which will let me focus down to 20cm to give 1:1 with low distortion and go out to infinity, for me this makes a good nature lens for field walking (a very long lens might also be required). -- Ian G8ILZ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Like New Boxed Set of Vivitar Automatic Extension Tubes for Nikons and Nikromats | Hugh Lyon-Sach | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | January 9th 06 05:26 PM |
Using extension tubes? | Brian Stirling | Digital Photography | 13 | October 30th 04 09:59 AM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Close-up Photography with Extension Tubes | Tim Mathers | Photographing Nature | 0 | November 27th 03 01:19 PM |