User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 100Macro vs 24-105L with extension tubes

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Sep 2010
    Location
    near Toowoomba
    Posts
    344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    100Macro vs 24-105L with extension tubes

    i have seen Milspec's post in the Macro section using a 70-200 and tubes to shot the fly

    I was pretty much sold on the idea of buying the Canon 100 USM macro lens
    Now i'm wondering if my 24-105L would be as good if I purchase the Extension Tubes?

    Has anyone used the tubes on the 24-105 or is the f4 too slow?

    Thanks for any info....

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Jul 2010
    Location
    South
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have not used extension tubes with the 24-105, but personally I'd just get the macro lens (which I do have). Even with 25mm worth of extension tube on the 24-105, will be it be 1:1 lifesize? The 100mm macro is probably the best lens you'll ever buy. It is very versatile, and can be used for portraiture as well sa macro, medium telephoto lens etc
    Canon stuff 5Dmk1 w/ 24-70 f2.8L, Canon 5Dmk1 w/70-200f2.8L, 100mm f2.8 macro, 50mm f1.4, 580exII
    Alienbees B800, Lumopro 160, Manfrotto 155XPROB w/ 498RC2, Lowepro ProRunner X450AW
    Phew!

  3. #3
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Allan,
    I don't think the 24-105 with tubes would be "as good" as a dedicated macro lens.
    You will however get some amazing shots with a combination like that.

    I would look at the Kenko tubes, set of 3 for a total of 68mm will set you back between $150-$200 depending on where you buy.

    You will lose AF and about 3 stops of light at full extension, but all in all a very budget conscious way to try some real macro work, then if you do get the dedicated macro lens you can always add the tubes to that and start getting better than life size reproduction
    Smoke Alarms Save Lives, Install One Today
    I shoot Canon
    Cheers, Mark


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    30 May 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,599
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is exactly the combination I use.

    Apart from losing your focal range (you need to change or remove the tubes to alter the range or focus to infinity) and losing the stop or two, they are great.

    it is a cost / benefit thing - but if you need macro in low-light - maybe the 100mm f2.8 is better.



    remember, I am new at this

    Scotty
    Canon 7D : Canon EF 70-200mm f:2.8 L IS II USM - Canon EF 24-105 f:4 L IS USM - Canon EF 50mm f:1.8 - Canon EF-s 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6
    Sigma APO 150-500mm f:5-6.3 DG OS HSM
    - Sigma 10-20mm f:3.5 EX DC HSM
    Speedlite 580 EX II - Nissin Di866 II - Yongnuo 460-II x2 - Kenko extension tube set - Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
    Manfroto monopod - SILK 700DX Pro tripod - Remote release - Cokin Z-Pro filter box + Various filters

    Current Social Experiment: CAPRIL - Wearing a cape for the month of April to support Beyond Blue
    Visit me on Flickr

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    02 Sep 2010
    Location
    near Toowoomba
    Posts
    344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi Scotty
    Nice Pic
    Zedex raised the question - Can the 24-105L make it to 1:1 with the use of tubes?
    Do you know if you can get to that magnification? i don't know how you would work that out?


    THANKS

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •