A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 18th 06, 05:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 06:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 06:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 08:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 08:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 12:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 07:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 18th 06, 08:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 19th 06, 05:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 19th 06, 08:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.