"IMHO": Getting More With Macro

Hi- if lighting is not an issue, then extension tubes are often ideal. As they don't have any 'glass' of their own, image quality is barely compromised. It's easier to attach macro flashes to them also, as the thread is preserved.

If you're going to use a close-up lens then the Raynox ones are excellent. Failing that, you'd want to get a high quality achromat diopter. The challenge with the Raynox is that its universal 'adapter' gets in the way of attaching macro flashes to the end of the lens. (I got around this by rigging up my own adapter that would).

If you have a "full set" of extension tubes on the rear of a 50mm lens, working distance is already minimal, adding a raynox 250 wouldn't really work. Do you have all these items so you could just try? If not, let me know and I'll try it. Anyway, those close-up filters like the raynox one are more useful on longer lenses, think 200mm.

james2441139 wrote: kurja wrote: If you have a "full set" of extension tubes on the rear of a 50mm lens, working distance is already minimal, adding a raynox 250 wouldn't really work. Do you have all these items so you could just try? If not, let me know and I'll try it. Anyway, those close-up filters like the raynox one are more useful on longer lenses, think 200mm. I have a Mino 50mm/2.8 macro that I wanted to use on my A900 with possibly extension tubes and/or the Raynox. I do not have the tubes or the Raynox. If you have these, can you please try and share your thoughts on the pros and cons? Thanks.

Sure.

In my opinion, the raynox is worthless if used with a 50mm lens, it really needs a longer lens to go with. I like using tubes; they seem like the easy, affordable solution. It's a plus for them that they don't really affect your image quality as there are no extra lenses, they're just empty tubes. Downside is that you lose a lot of light and focusing can be very difficult if your subject isn't well lit (even with a 1.4 lens).

I just snapped a few pictures to illustrate the differences. All handheld et cetera, do not look for image quality. First one, is with both, tubes and the raynox, on a 50/2.8. Distance between subject and lens is minimal, it was actually touching the raynox's filter threads, distance to lens at the center was probably <5mm.

Second one, only with extension tubes on the same lens. You'll see that the magnification isn't so much different, which is a bit of a surprise maybe. Working distance improved to something like 3cm between subject and lens. It's worth a mention here, that with extension tubes you could use a normal 50 instead of a macro - you do get a little closer with a macro 50, but not as much as one might assume.

Third pic in the first link is with a 300mm and the Raynox. Magnification still in the same general ballpark, but working distance is vastly improved, I'd guess to about 12cm. Handholding and focusing is... tricky, to say the least.

Fourth picture in the first link was taken with a 50mm macro without tubes or any other extra bits (just to show the diffference in magnification).

The second link is to a (cropped) picture I took with a non-macro 50 and extensions, and a picture with telephoto lens and raynox. My only telephoto lens is a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 1:2 macro which is an abysmal lens, so if I want detail I go for the 50, but if I need the working distance I get the 300 and raynox. I suspect you could get very good detail with raynox if you had a decent telephoto lens.

All pics taken on aps bodies. If you want me to try some other setup, just let me know!

https://plus.google.com/photos/100318876908742179238/albums/5926905083344271153?authkey=CLyC-omllNrtSg

https://plus.google.com/photos/100318876908742179238/albums/5793711568415921841?authkey=CNX2svObxMDQHQ



edit - almost forgot, added a picture with 50mm and the raynox 250 without any extension rings.



Edited by brettania - 25 September 2013 at 02:33

Tried this setup myself with 50/2.8 and a full set of tubes. Its literally almost touching the tip of the lens. I guess ex. tubes are good for macros with 100mm or more focal lengths, even though the magnification is not much?

james2441139 wrote: Tried this setup myself with 50/2.8 and a full set of tubes. Its literally almost touching the tip of the lens. I guess ex. tubes are good for macros with 100mm or more focal lengths, even though the magnification is not much?

hmm to each his own I guess, regardless of what you do with extensions, diopters or the like, you're always trading between magnification and working distance. To increase distance without giving up magnification, use longer lenses.

All of the optics calculations of magnification and extension tubes break down when you are using a zoom lens. This can be considered, simplistically, to be like a telescope with an "eyepiece" and an "objective" lens with avariable element in between. The "eyepiece" being nearest the sensor, the effect of extension tubes is determined by its optical characteristics NOT by the combination. Thus with most zoom lenses, a short extension will have a big effect on near focus distance and hence magnification. Thus although extension tubes (and bellows) will work with a zoom lens, their effect will be very difficult to predict. However, with a prime lens using normal extension focusing the effects are much more predictable. But a macro lens using internal focusing will act more like a zoom in this respect. The 10 - 20 mm lens mentioned earlier is very long wrt. the shortest focal length and this will severely reduce the magnification obtainable with the subject still in front of the lens

You can test these effect simply by detaching the lens from the camera and holding it a few millimeters in front of the flange. Even disengaging the bayonet is often enough to demonstrate the effect. Crude, but it could save you the expense of extension tubes that might not work as you think.