Hello everyone !
I am an 18 year old photographer from Slovakia and i really want to get closer in macro and since i am a student my budget is quite low and i am deciding between my next gear and i am not really sure which way to go, i gathered a lot of informations for past weeks.
I have canon 550d and canon EF 100mm f/2.8 lens, i want a higher magnification setup and i was considering getting 1. 65mm extension tubes + pentax 50mm 1.7 reversed or getting 2. raynox 250 for my canon 100mm and extension tubes on that too. I was told that the reverse way has lower image quality on higher resolution and that the viewfinder is too dark. With my calculations 1. would give me 2.2x magnification and 232.7mm closest focusing distance and 2. would give me 3.1x magnification and 537mm closest focusing distance ( with 65mm extension ) If i think about it correctly, would 2. make me be further from my subject without distracting it and still get higher magnification than with 1. setup ? How about comparisons of image quality ?
Thanks a lot for your answers people.
Macro gear | Cant decide
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
HI - welcome to the forum!
First - Is the Canon 100mm you have, a Macro lens?
A reversed 50mm lens, whether on tubes or the front of the 100mm lens, will give you a short working distance, probably too short for live subjects which can fly away.
Exact working distances of lens combinations ( and whether they vignette or not) depend on the actual lens construction so may only be approximate.
All the methods you're considering are "OK" from a quality point of view. At say 2x magnification, you'll have much less than 1mm of depth of field, with smallest apertures reducing your quality, so you'll probably want to "focus stack" if you want things sharper. Other things rapidly become more complex..
First - Is the Canon 100mm you have, a Macro lens?
A reversed 50mm lens, whether on tubes or the front of the 100mm lens, will give you a short working distance, probably too short for live subjects which can fly away.
Exact working distances of lens combinations ( and whether they vignette or not) depend on the actual lens construction so may only be approximate.
All the methods you're considering are "OK" from a quality point of view. At say 2x magnification, you'll have much less than 1mm of depth of field, with smallest apertures reducing your quality, so you'll probably want to "focus stack" if you want things sharper. Other things rapidly become more complex..
Hi, thanks.
Yeah the 100 mm is a macro lens with magnification 1:1
I have strong metz flash with large softbox so i will shoot at f/8 , i am aware of focus stacking, all the calculations i did are based on one calculator on cambridge in color website. All i need to know is, which of the options i listed is better quality wise on higher resolution
Yeah the 100 mm is a macro lens with magnification 1:1
I have strong metz flash with large softbox so i will shoot at f/8 , i am aware of focus stacking, all the calculations i did are based on one calculator on cambridge in color website. All i need to know is, which of the options i listed is better quality wise on higher resolution
I happen to have a non-L 100mm USM macro as well as the Raynox 250 and a set of extension tubes. I have not been using the Raynox together with the tubes myself, but a quick test with a ruler gives the following:
With just the lens and the Raynox 250 the field of view (on a full frame sensor) is about 16 mm at the 1:1 setting on the lens and 46mm at infinity.
With a full set of Kenko tubes and the Raynox 250 field of view is 23mm at infinity and 9,5mm at 1:1
With just the extension tubes the field of view is 53mm at infinity and 17mm at 1:1
In other words either the Raynox or a set of extension tubes will get you to roughly 2X magnification on sensor. The working distance is larger with the tubes than with the Raynox though - did not measure exactly but roughly 12cm vs. 6 cm at the closest setting.
/Bo
With just the lens and the Raynox 250 the field of view (on a full frame sensor) is about 16 mm at the 1:1 setting on the lens and 46mm at infinity.
With a full set of Kenko tubes and the Raynox 250 field of view is 23mm at infinity and 9,5mm at 1:1
With just the extension tubes the field of view is 53mm at infinity and 17mm at 1:1
In other words either the Raynox or a set of extension tubes will get you to roughly 2X magnification on sensor. The working distance is larger with the tubes than with the Raynox though - did not measure exactly but roughly 12cm vs. 6 cm at the closest setting.
/Bo
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Hello from me also!
My expectation is that there would not be much difference, when both systems were stopped down appropriately.
But continuing with other things you may care about...
I posted some comments several years ago at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 5346#85346 that address some of your questions. Note especially the last paragraph, that I saw inferior results by adding extension while leaving the 100 mm focus ring set near infinity.
As ChrisR mentions, calculations will only be approximations, and not necessarily very good ones at that. The real lenses are "thick", not "thin", so the basic formula 1/f = 1/o + 1/i has to be modified by taking into account separation of the principal planes. The positions of those are seldom published. Macro lenses also have a tendency to shorten their effective focal length when their ring is set to focus closer, which messes up the calculations too.
In any case, it's important to consider that for a macro photographer, what's important is the distance between subject and the front of the equipment, not between subject and sensor plane. (I have never understood why the term "working distance" is commonly used for subject to sensor plane. It seems very misleading.)
I can reproduce your value of "232.7mm" for case 1 by using a thin lens model with a 50mm lens, and adding together the front and rear extensions to get 72.7 + 160 = 232.7 . But that would mean the subject is only 72.7 mm away from the modeled lens. In practice the working distance will be less than that because the principal plane is buried some distance inside the lens.
I don't have a 50 mm f/1.7. Instead, reversing a 55 mm f/1.8 on 67 mm extension, I measure 12.3 mm field width on an APS-C sensor with 67 mm from subject to lens. That's about 1.8X. In contrast, the thin-lens calculation would suggest 85 mm in front, so the actual working distance is about 20% less than calculated.
Using a Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8L IS USM + Raynox, with no tubes, and adjusting focus to give the same 12.3 mm field width, I measure 57 mm from subject to lens (versus 67 mm for the reversed 55 mm lens). So, there's not much difference in actual working distance between those two configurations. I would expect it to be even less with a reversed 50.
However, as pontop notes, this same magnification can be achieved with greater working distance (I measure 99 mm) by using the 100 mm plus tubes, no Raynox. That advantage does go in favor of the 100+tubes, though not nearly to the extent suggested by your numbers.
With the 100mm on closest focus plus a Raynox DCR-250 plus 67 mm of extension tubes, I measure only about 45 mm from equipment to subject. Field width in this case is a little less than 7 mm on an APS-C size sensor, maybe 3.4X, so your magnification estimate looks pretty good.
Operationally, there are two big differences. The first is that using auto tubes and the Canon EF, you can focus at full aperture and then stop down automatically at the instant of exposure. This is much more convenient for field use, but doesn't matter much for studio use. The other is that with the Canon EF plus Raynox plus optional tubes, you can pretty easily cover the whole range from infinity focus to about 3X.
There is also a large difference in size of the whole equipment package. On my T1i, the 100mm plus tubes plus Raynox makes a package that totals over 270 mm front to back.
I hope this helps.
--Rik
Unfortunately that's one thing I cannot tell you. It would depend on exactly how well your 50 mm f/1.7 does.All i need to know is, which of the options i listed is better quality wise on higher resolution
My expectation is that there would not be much difference, when both systems were stopped down appropriately.
But continuing with other things you may care about...
I posted some comments several years ago at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 5346#85346 that address some of your questions. Note especially the last paragraph, that I saw inferior results by adding extension while leaving the 100 mm focus ring set near infinity.
As ChrisR mentions, calculations will only be approximations, and not necessarily very good ones at that. The real lenses are "thick", not "thin", so the basic formula 1/f = 1/o + 1/i has to be modified by taking into account separation of the principal planes. The positions of those are seldom published. Macro lenses also have a tendency to shorten their effective focal length when their ring is set to focus closer, which messes up the calculations too.
In any case, it's important to consider that for a macro photographer, what's important is the distance between subject and the front of the equipment, not between subject and sensor plane. (I have never understood why the term "working distance" is commonly used for subject to sensor plane. It seems very misleading.)
I can reproduce your value of "232.7mm" for case 1 by using a thin lens model with a 50mm lens, and adding together the front and rear extensions to get 72.7 + 160 = 232.7 . But that would mean the subject is only 72.7 mm away from the modeled lens. In practice the working distance will be less than that because the principal plane is buried some distance inside the lens.
I don't have a 50 mm f/1.7. Instead, reversing a 55 mm f/1.8 on 67 mm extension, I measure 12.3 mm field width on an APS-C sensor with 67 mm from subject to lens. That's about 1.8X. In contrast, the thin-lens calculation would suggest 85 mm in front, so the actual working distance is about 20% less than calculated.
Using a Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8L IS USM + Raynox, with no tubes, and adjusting focus to give the same 12.3 mm field width, I measure 57 mm from subject to lens (versus 67 mm for the reversed 55 mm lens). So, there's not much difference in actual working distance between those two configurations. I would expect it to be even less with a reversed 50.
However, as pontop notes, this same magnification can be achieved with greater working distance (I measure 99 mm) by using the 100 mm plus tubes, no Raynox. That advantage does go in favor of the 100+tubes, though not nearly to the extent suggested by your numbers.
With the 100mm on closest focus plus a Raynox DCR-250 plus 67 mm of extension tubes, I measure only about 45 mm from equipment to subject. Field width in this case is a little less than 7 mm on an APS-C size sensor, maybe 3.4X, so your magnification estimate looks pretty good.
Operationally, there are two big differences. The first is that using auto tubes and the Canon EF, you can focus at full aperture and then stop down automatically at the instant of exposure. This is much more convenient for field use, but doesn't matter much for studio use. The other is that with the Canon EF plus Raynox plus optional tubes, you can pretty easily cover the whole range from infinity focus to about 3X.
There is also a large difference in size of the whole equipment package. On my T1i, the 100mm plus tubes plus Raynox makes a package that totals over 270 mm front to back.
I hope this helps.
--Rik
-
Rylee Isitt
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
That non-L 100mm macro is a good lens. I use to own it before I upgraded to the L lens. It was my first macro lens. For Canon gear, I think that was a very good choice you made there. Honestly, I have never found the L version of that lens to be much different, but then I haven't done any scientific comparisons either.
Personally, on a limited budget I think it's hard to beat extension tubes. They are wonderful accessories. After having sunk ridiculous amounts of cash into my studio macro setup, my most often used accessory is also one of the cheapest... a Pentax M42 bellows. A bellows is just a geared/adjustable extension tube! The Kenko tubes are somewhere around $100 I think. They are not extremely well built, but they aren't poorly built either. They are quite suitable for most work and I highly recommend them.
But the extension tubes won't get you further from your subject... they'll get you even closer. If you are photographing critters that might simply scare them away.
For greater distance between you and the subject, consider the Canon 180mm L macro. It's expensive... but maybe put it on a wish list and treat yourself to it one birthday/Christmas. Also consider the Sigma offerings and other non-Canon EF lenses. I met a professional macro photographer who swore by Tamron's 180mm macro and his shots did indeed look pretty good!
At high magnification you will see a dim viewfinder even with extension tubes. High magnification work in the field is almost masochistic. Be prepared to come back from shoots with dozens of images where the composition is *just* off, or the focus is *just* off. Because you seldom have time with living things to set up a tripod, and hand-holding at high magnification feels like doing photography during a major earthquake while wearing a blindfold... nothing stays still and you can barely see.
Personally, on a limited budget I think it's hard to beat extension tubes. They are wonderful accessories. After having sunk ridiculous amounts of cash into my studio macro setup, my most often used accessory is also one of the cheapest... a Pentax M42 bellows. A bellows is just a geared/adjustable extension tube! The Kenko tubes are somewhere around $100 I think. They are not extremely well built, but they aren't poorly built either. They are quite suitable for most work and I highly recommend them.
But the extension tubes won't get you further from your subject... they'll get you even closer. If you are photographing critters that might simply scare them away.
For greater distance between you and the subject, consider the Canon 180mm L macro. It's expensive... but maybe put it on a wish list and treat yourself to it one birthday/Christmas. Also consider the Sigma offerings and other non-Canon EF lenses. I met a professional macro photographer who swore by Tamron's 180mm macro and his shots did indeed look pretty good!
At high magnification you will see a dim viewfinder even with extension tubes. High magnification work in the field is almost masochistic. Be prepared to come back from shoots with dozens of images where the composition is *just* off, or the focus is *just* off. Because you seldom have time with living things to set up a tripod, and hand-holding at high magnification feels like doing photography during a major earthquake while wearing a blindfold... nothing stays still and you can barely see.
Some of those working (should perhaps say "clearance" distances) are less than I would have thought. Presumably a shortening of focal length at close focus is partly responsible for that.
Another option would be a 2x converter on the 100mm macro lens. (I mean the ones which go between the camera and lens. I see a lot of front-fitting telephoto converters for sale at low prices, but I haven't tried them.)
Those would give you exactly the same clearance as you have now, with twice the magnification. They do it at all focus distances though, so for eg butterflies, they're quite useful. They wouldn't give as good a result as a dedicated 180mm macro lens (Sigma is sharper and cheaper than Canon) but whether you'd see the difference when stopped down, would depend on the size of the image you're looking at. For screen/web use, it may be hard to tell.
Another option would be a 2x converter on the 100mm macro lens. (I mean the ones which go between the camera and lens. I see a lot of front-fitting telephoto converters for sale at low prices, but I haven't tried them.)
Those would give you exactly the same clearance as you have now, with twice the magnification. They do it at all focus distances though, so for eg butterflies, they're quite useful. They wouldn't give as good a result as a dedicated 180mm macro lens (Sigma is sharper and cheaper than Canon) but whether you'd see the difference when stopped down, would depend on the size of the image you're looking at. For screen/web use, it may be hard to tell.
Last edited by ChrisR on Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Rylee Isitt
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Right, I forget about teleconverters! They are more pricey than extension tubes and may (due to added glass elements) impact image quality to a greater extent, but they are also more useful in other situations because they still allow focus to infinity. Good for wildlife photography and astrophotography as well as macrophotography.
Thank you all for your in depth answers
I will have to re-read this all few more times to understand completely everything what was said.
So 100mm + extension tubes + raynox isnt a good choice ?
I think these pictures were done with the same setup.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29369066@N05/5123715725/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glenespn/5768331401
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glenespn/7782579780/
and this with 50mm reversed 1.7
https://www.flickr.com/photos/57708514@N06/8728412434
I will have to re-read this all few more times to understand completely everything what was said.
So 100mm + extension tubes + raynox isnt a good choice ?
I think these pictures were done with the same setup.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29369066@N05/5123715725/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glenespn/5768331401
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glenespn/7782579780/
and this with 50mm reversed 1.7
https://www.flickr.com/photos/57708514@N06/8728412434
I haven't got that Pentax lens but have tried a few other standard ones . Generally the edges go off somewhat when reversed on extension. Reversing them on a longer lens can be better.
More often than not, though, the corners don't matter too much. None of the combinations you're proposing will be as good at pixel level as the finest lens one can buy, but for the pictures you picked as examples, at the resolution they're available, it probably wouldn't make a visible difference.
If you want to write a best selling thriller, the Word Processor you use.... One of the authors you chose was Thomas Rak. I've got a better lens than he used, but I'd struggle to get as good a picture.
I'd suggest you go for the Raynox and see how you find it. You can also get very cheap manual Chinese tubes.
More often than not, though, the corners don't matter too much. None of the combinations you're proposing will be as good at pixel level as the finest lens one can buy, but for the pictures you picked as examples, at the resolution they're available, it probably wouldn't make a visible difference.
If you want to write a best selling thriller, the Word Processor you use.... One of the authors you chose was Thomas Rak. I've got a better lens than he used, but I'd struggle to get as good a picture.
I'd suggest you go for the Raynox and see how you find it. You can also get very cheap manual Chinese tubes.
I used the Pentax 50/1,7 reversed. It works good reversed.
Replaced it by the 50/1,4 and that is not so good for macro work.
This picture is made with just the lens reversed on the body at f22 and the pop-up flash. It is hard to command the diafragm (move the lever with your finger)
It sure is a good deal if you are on a budget.
Replaced it by the 50/1,4 and that is not so good for macro work.
This picture is made with just the lens reversed on the body at f22 and the pop-up flash. It is hard to command the diafragm (move the lever with your finger)
It sure is a good deal if you are on a budget.