100Macro vs 24-105L with extension tubes

[Allan Ryan]

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....

[ZedEx]

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

[MarkChap]

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

[Scotty72]

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

[Allan Ryan]

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