Macro extender

[Fedgrub]

Hi all,

Wondering the pros and cons (other than losing a stop) on getting an extender for my 100mm f2.8 macro lens. Looking to get the really close up bug shots where you can get the super fine details in focus.

I read a little about a Raynox 250s, and Canon EF 2x II Extender, and not sure which would be the better option. From what I'm reading, the Canon would be?

Thanks in advance

[William W]

The Canon x2.0MkII Tele-extender will NOT mount on the EF100F/2.8 Macro lens.
You can use a 12mm extension tube, to facilitate the connection.

***

Adding the x2.0MkII (and the 12mm tube) will give you roughly additional x2 magnification and capacity to work at a slightly longer working distance, but at the cost of two and a little bit more stops.

For example:

The object for reference:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14529812-md.jpg

The 100mm at closest focus – WD is about 5inches:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14529813-lg.jpg

The 100mm plus 12mm Tube + x2.0MkII tele-extender at closest focus – the WD is about 6 inches:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14529814-md.jpg


WW

[Bennymiata]

The Kenko 2X should fit, and works well, and is very cheap to boot.

I have used one with my Sigma 150mm macro, and it really allows you to get those very tiny bugs.

[Fedgrub]

Thanks guys. Have either of you or anyone else had any experience with the Raynox 250s? I have seen some good results with it, and it's quite cheap...

[William W]

. . . no I haven't.

I think the Raynox are akin to what Canon term "Close Up Lens".
These devices mount onto the FRONT of the lens.

If I am correct, you are comparing apples to oranges between the Raynox and using the x2.0MkII tele extender (or a Kenko tele extender) regarding the technicalities and also likely the results.

Close Up Lenses added onto the front of a lens can add an optical vignette and also stray dramatically in image quality and focus (or sharpness) at the edges.
However that is not to say that a C/U lens will not give a suitable and artistic image, because often a soft edge of slight vignette is a welcome addition to a super macro of a bug's head.

Also if using an APS-C camera, the edges are lost as the Lens's Image Circle is larger than sensor, so the Raynox might be just fine - if researching by viewing images: "what camera was used?", would be one question I would ask.

However the Canon C/U lenses: 250D and 500D are excellent quality and would be a much fairer comparison for you to make against the Raynox. As mentioned I have not used the Raynox or have I ever seen one, but I can say that the optics on the Canon C/U lenses is quite good and both the 250D and 500D are made in a 58mm size to fit the Filter size of the EF100F/2.8 Macro.

The 250D will allow a maximum magnification of about x1.4 and the 500D will allow a maximum magnification of about x1.2 when used with the 100/2.8 macro.

But as opposed to using a tele-extender, a Close Up lens will generally necessitate a very small WD (Working Distance).

Re-iterating with a x2.0 tele-extender and the 100 macro lens, you are basically getting x2 macro at about 6 inches WD, but, for example with a 250D close up lens you can be expecting to have a WD at about 1~2 inches typical, and only x1.4 magnification.

I have no idea on the specs of the Raynox - but it would be expected that the WD would be short and magnifications would be less than using a x2.0 tele-extender.

WW

[Fedgrub]

That's given me a good headstart, WW. Thanks!

[B D H]

I had a raynox 250, I bought it on ebay,for under $100.00 as I remember
very frustrating to use in that the dof is exremely shallow & you may not get a bugs entire head/face in focus

I don't think it would be a positive step putting it on a fine lens such as your 100 f2.8
William W has pretty much defined the close up lenses which are very similar, possibly better in quality

Have you thought about a good set of extension tubes? might be the way to go

[Fedgrub]

I'm considering that now. Before this thread I didn't even know their purpose lol. :scrtch:

Any extension tubes (or good places to get one) you guys would recommend that would compliment my 100mm 2.8?

Thanks!

[B D H]

if you buy a set of tubes its worth buying the electronic (AF) type, others are cheaper but you end up with man focus only as they're dont connect the lens to camera electronically
here's a starting point: http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/advsearch.asp?action=search&keyword=kenko&Submit=Search you may find them cheaper on ebay etc

[Fedgrub]

Thanks heaps! So to be sure, This is What I'd need to get the super close, high detail bug shots where you can see the tiles on a fly's eye for example with my 100mm 2.8 (assuming skill)?

Sorry this is a dodgy post, I'm writing from my phone lol

[William W]

I use the Kenko set of three tubes. I recommend them, for your use, They are not expensive and well finished and have a good inside and have the electronic connections for AF etc. It was the 12mm Kenko Tube I used in conjunction with the x2.0MkII tele-extender to take that sample image.

***

WARNING: Kenko's latest series model is the "DG". But there are TWO versions of that series.

The first version does NOT allow the connection of EF-S lenses. This may or may not be relevant to you.
The second release of the “Set of Three” Kenko tubes, which do allow connection of EF-S lenses are clearly identifiable by the WHITE SQUARE EF-S mounting alignment mark on the FEMALE mount end of the extension tube.

ALSO: Kenko sell (or sold) two tubes, each separately, the 12mm and 25mm AFAIK, neither of these separate items will allow mounting of EF-S lenses

WW

[William W]

I had a raynox 250 . . . I don't think it would be a positive step putting it on a fine lens such as your 100 f2.8

Thanks for the 1st hand info - I've filed that.

WW

[Fedgrub]

Thanks heaps WW. Am I confused, or will I need these extension tubes as well as the Extender (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=52)

Sorry, I get confused easily.

[B D H]

these tubes work on their own with your lens, there are 3 sizes depending on how close you want to go
all or any combination can be used
its all about experimenting until you get your desired result
they can be used in combo with extenders but that could be further down the track
I've just seen them on fleabay for $136.00 with free freight

[William W]

. . . well you "need" based on what you want to do.

You can use ONLY the tubes with the 100/2.8 macro and that will get you more magnification - or you can use the extender also - and that will give you more.

I am cooking dinner ATM . . . I have some teaching visuals on my HD and I will post them and some magnification figures and Working Distances later on tonight or tomorrow and you can work out what's most suitable for working with your bugs.

Anyway whatever the maths of it, I expect using the tubes will be a starting point as a good purchase for your macro kit - it you get "involved" you'll be buying a macro fine adjustment table and some macro flash lighting and . . . etc etc.

WW

[William W]

. . . yes what Bryan said also . . . "later down the track": the tubes will always be a useful addition in your bag - for other lenses.

Gotta go now

WW

[William W]

I just caught this post:


Thanks heaps! So to be sure, This is What I'd need to get the super close, high detail bug shots where you can see the tiles on a fly's eye for example with my 100mm 2.8 (assuming skill)?

Sorry this is a dodgy post, I'm writing from my phone lol


NO. It is not: not easily done.

The specialist lens MP-E 65F/2.8 Macro is the lens for that job.

But you will get close.

Numbers coming later

WW

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day FG

The Raynox 250 is a 4-dioptre multi-element close up lens that can fit onto the front of any camera lens [of the appropriate filter-thread size]. The "250" is the working distance of 250mm or 1/4metre from the +4 dioptre lens

This lens is a very high quality lens - much the same IQ as the Canon or Nikon equivalents and could be a serious contender if you chose to use it. As you will probably know from other threads, the close up lens has a defined focus distance / working distance and it matters-not what prime camera lens it is attached to ... 50mm or 100mm or 300mm for that matter, the focus distance is 250mm for this lens

As others ^ have mentioned, Ext'n tubes are a distinct possibility but they have potential issues with compatability too

Hope this helps a bit
Regards, Phil

[William W]

OK.

A different opinion of the Raynox. Assumed you have used it?

Thank you, noted.

WW

[Bennymiata]

Extension tubes will allow you to get closer to the subject, and the Kenko's are excellent.
I have a set of them and they work fine on EF-S lenses, and cost me about $150 from Top Buy.
Extenders DO NOT have any glas sin them, so they ca'nt degrade the IQ.

A converter will actually magnify the subject, so you don't need to be so close, but you may lose just a little IQ.

You can use both of these things together to get the item at just the size you want.

[William W]

As promised.

These are from a set of macro images I use to show various aberrations; shooting faults; false expectations; macro combinations; working distances and relative magnifications.

To allow comparative magnifications to be viewed, the images are all Full Crop (i.e. the full frame image is shown).
Because this set of images is used for a range of training purposes, some used here might contain blemishes, shortcomings, faults or other considerations – where relevant to this thread, I have noted these.

Purposely they are SOOC (straight out of the camera), a 5D, using the EF100F/2.8Macro and the main lens.

WD = Working Distance, which is from the front of the lens to the Subject.

All the macro shots attempt to get the maximum magnification possible and are at about the CFD (Closest Focussing Distance)
I have chosen a few, to address some of your questions about bugs and flies etc:


Here is the reference shot:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14538073-md.jpg
We can see the purple bud is about 4mm long – about the size of the head of a bush fly

***

Here is the 100mm macro:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14538074-md.jpg
The WD ≈ 150mm. F/5.6 used for this shot – arguably the correct, or incorrect, choice? It is a sunny day and using ISO400.

***

Here is the 100mm macro and a +4 dioptre Close Up Lens on the front of the lens (e.g. the Canon 250D)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14538075-md.jpg
The WD ≈ 70mm. F/5.6 used for this shot also – and considering the extra magnification the aperture really needs to be stopped down a bit more,
Typically using F/11 or F/16 is a good idea with a +4 dipotre (or 250) Close Up Lens.
We already might be considering extra lights for extra DoF or alternatively bumping the ISO to ISO800.
But we have not lost any appreciable lens speed using a Close Up Lens, that’s one advantage of these add-on lenses.

***

Here is the 100 macro and the 12mm tube and the Canon x2.0MkII tele-extender. (this will be almost be the same image for the Kenko x2.0 Tele-extender if it fits your lens)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14538077-md.jpg
The WD ≈ 140mm. But we have lost two stops of lens speed – so we are at F/4 but still at ISO400 – really need to bump to ISO800 or use extra lights, or both. But as you can see, the bug's or fly's head would be a lot bigger, and also note that we are farther away from the Subject, than when we used the Close Up Lens.

***

By comparison here is the 100mm macro and just the THREE extension tubes:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14538076-md.jpg
The magnification is a little less than using the Canon x2.0MkII Tele-Extender.
And the WD is closer, the WD ≈ 90mm and there is still a loss of just under 2 stops of lens speed, but this is probably a less expensive option than buying a x2.0 tele-extender.

***

Here is the x2.0MkII tele-extender and the three extension tubes:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14538078-md.jpg

There is a loss of about 3½~3⅔ stops of lens speed and the viewfinder is quite dark: we are now working in daylight at ISO1600 and at F/5, but the shutter speed has dropped to 1/125s.
As well as there being a really shallow DoF – that is subject motion blur we see because 1/125s is just too slow a shutter speed and even though there is “no wind at all” there still is a little movement in the subject – so macro flash for shots this close, is really a very serious consideration.

***

Although there is only air inside Extension Tubes: there is also an inner wall.
That wall is best finished in matt black and with no shiny elements or fittings.
Although extension tubes contain no lens elements (no glass), the better quality extension tubes are well finished on the inside and the longer, good quality tubes have light baffles (ridges) inside.

Poorer quality extension tubes, which are not well finished on the inside of the tubes, can affect the final image quality, as they have an increased tendency to manifest flare, in some shooting situations.

***

The Focal Length of the Close-Up Lens is related to the dioptre or magnification.
The dioptre value is obtained by dividing 1000, by the Focal Length of the Close-Up Lens, so for example the Canon D250 Close-Up lens (Focal length is 250) - is “+4 Dioptre”.

Also, the Focal Length of the Close-Up Lens indicates the Maximum Working Distance you will have when that Close Up Lens is attached to the Main Lens.

But when using a Close Up Lens, the working distance does not remain the same, but it varies as the main lens’s Focus Turret is moved.

i.e. with a D250 (or +4 Dipotre Close Up Lens), the Maximum Working Distance will be 250mm and that will be attained when the Main Lens, is focused at ∞.
As the Main Lens is focused closer, the Working Distance becomes smaller

WW

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day WilliamW

an excellent discussion & illustrations

one minor thing ... on my panasonic 12x zoom camera, the lens itself does not come forward during zooming, thus the close-up lens to subject distance does not alter as I zoom from 35mm to 420mm [equiv]
The dSLR lenses certainly 'grow' trombone-like and the working distance alters as well ... a real bugga

Regards, Phil

[William W]

Phil, hello back to you.

Thank you for the added info and I take your point – I was only considering the EF100/2.8 in question and also considering other Canon EF lenses C/U lenses with might be typically used in conjunction with a C/U lens.

And now I also understand more clearly your original comment about working distances staying the same - as these Close Up Lenses (and also wide angle add on lenses) are often used on cameras like the Panasonic you mentioned.
And, I earlier today “googled” the Raynox250 and it seems an “adaptal” style of Close Up Lens so it is ideally suited to fit cameras like the Panasonic without all step up rings and added “stuff”.

To be specific - it’s not the fact that the EF100F/2.8 macro grows at all (outside) when it is focused: it is the type of focussing mechanics, inside.

But other lenses (like the EF50F/1.4 for example) which might sport the D250 C/U Lens do as you mentioned “grow” outside, when focused - and the Working Distance changes considerably more than just the equivalent distance of that lens extension.


Thank you for you kind comment, regards also,

WW

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day William

While many of us are aware of the lens terminology "internal focusing" thus that the lens does not alter during focusing, most superzoom lenses have "internal zooming" thus that the lens barrel does not extend during zooming. This was esp the case in the 10x to 12x range of lenses ... but recent 20x to 30x lenses are starting to grow during zooming - but that dimensional change might only be 25mm for a focal alteration from 40mm to 400mm in equivalent terms

Regards, Phil

[William W]

... but recent 20x to 30x lenses are starting to grow during zooming . . . etc
I know it's slightly off the main topic, but I gotta say those upmarket P&S and "bridge" cameras continuously amaze me, perhaps the sector with the greatest rate of recent change/improvement.

Regards,

WW

[Fedgrub]

Thanks heaps for taking the time to post all those, William! It gives me a much better idea into what I am after.