Using extension tubes with teleconvers |
Page 12> |
Author | ||
Pipswich ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 07 May 2011 Country: United Kingdom Status: Offline Posts: 39 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 22 June 2011 at 16:45 |
|
I have been trying to be careful not to spend too much money on a new hobby... but I did break down and buy a set of tubes on ebay. Manual focus only but under $20 shipped. Can't wait for them to arrive.
Meanwhile, I am lusting over that tilt/shift bellows set that seems way too much money! And, I just had my wife complain that she wanted a closer picture of a turtle eating marshmellows in our back yard. I finally got to say... See... I need better lens. hehe. I will post one of the good shots taken with a beercan for advice in the feedback area later! |
||
![]() |
||
Frankman ![]() Emeritus group ![]() Knowledge Base Editor Joined: 02 July 2006 Location: Australia Status: Offline Posts: 6916 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I was going to use chainsaw bar oil, but it was pretty grumpy at the time. ![]()
You can never have too many toys. ![]() Frank |
||
*** Sony A850 * A700 * Minolta 5D and other stuff ***
|
||
![]() |
||
Pipswich ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 07 May 2011 Country: United Kingdom Status: Offline Posts: 39 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I had no idea SAE 30 sitting on a board could be interesting enough for so many photos! I lost ten minutes to this and want to go get some tubes to play! Thanks for posting this.
|
||
![]() |
||
fem2008 ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 29 January 2009 Country: United States Location: Ohio - USA Status: Offline Posts: 1400 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Great point, Pete. Another way to look at it (and I could be wrong), if you think of it as a decrease in effective aperture. Since effective focal length is increasing, but lens opening is not, then the effective aperture must be smaller. Here is the equation. Area=Pi*Focal length^2/(4*Aperture^2). |
||
Fem2008
My Flickr Page |
||
![]() |
||
Pete Ganzel ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 05 August 2006 Country: United States Location: Little Canada Status: Offline Posts: 941 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Steve: Extending the lens from the sensor decreases the light available to the sensor due to an inverse square relationship (the projected area covered increases at the square of the distance extended and thus the light available to a given area is reduced). So there is definitely an exposure penalty with extension tubes. I believe teleconverters "use more light" for a similar reason in that they are essentially "beam expanders", though that expanded area may be cut off as part of the teleconverter design. The loss due to light transmission of the glass is actually a small part. Pete Edited by Pete Ganzel - 01 June 2011 at 23:18 |
||
![]() |
||
DaveK ![]() Senior Member ![]() Knowledge Base Contributor Joined: 08 October 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Center Status: Offline Posts: 3960 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
You had great results Frank. I never get these results with the (Sony) convertors I use. But I'll try again, seeing yours! TFS!
|
||
![]() |
||
berlin steve ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 08 April 2009 Country: United Kingdom Location: Berlin, Germany Status: Offline Posts: 1583 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I understand that teleconverters ´steal´light due to the extra glass. But surely extension tubes without additional optical obstructions should maintain the amount of light... or have I missed something?
BTW, the idea of mixing tubes and TC is pretty cool. I have both but assumed that tubes were just for macro, but this proves me wrong. |
||
F-Stop? F-Stopped! Anyone know how to get it going again???My Flickr
|
||
![]() |
||
Pavel ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 23 April 2007 Country: Czech Republic Location: The Hague Status: Offline Posts: 2598 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I forgot the lens must have refocused with the ex.tube so you got closer to the real 300mm and that's where the increase of the magnification comes from. That's good point! |
||
A-900+VG;16f/2.8fish;50f/1.4,Sig20f/1.8;Tammy 90f/2.8;Sony135STF;M200f/2.8HS;M 200 f/4 Macro;M 300f/4HS;Sony500f/8reflex;M600 f/4HS;M3x1xmacro;16-35CZ;24-70CZ;70-200SSM;70-400SSM;1.4xTc;2xTc
|
||
![]() |
||
momech ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 27 August 2006 Country: United States Location: United States Status: Offline Posts: 2934 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Tubes do 3 things, all by moving the lens further away from the body:
1. Increase magnification. 2. Decrease minimum focus distance. 3. Decrease DOF. The longer the tube, the more change you get. The longer the lens, the less change you get. You also lose infinity focus and some light, the longer the tube the more light loss. Adding the TCs means more light loss and magnification, but I don't think they change the MFD or DOF. There may be some kind of chart out there that lists characteristics for different combinations, but all I really know to do is experiment and try to remember which combo is good for what. |
||
![]() |
||
klw10 ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 06 May 2009 Country: United States Location: United States Status: Offline Posts: 1366 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I have played with tcs abd extension tubes as well. I got intetesting results with the za 135 plus tcs and tubes.
|
||
![]() |
||
Frankman ![]() Emeritus group ![]() Knowledge Base Editor Joined: 02 July 2006 Location: Australia Status: Offline Posts: 6916 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Pavel - No, the camera was not moved during the exercise. Interestingly, the focus distance scale on the lens does show a "shift" as I increase the size of the extension tubes. This verifies what Alex has written above.
Cheers, Frank |
||
*** Sony A850 * A700 * Minolta 5D and other stuff ***
|
||
![]() |
||
Alex H ![]() Senior Member ![]() Knowledgebase Contributor Joined: 06 November 2008 Country: Sweden Location: Stockholm Status: Offline Posts: 1591 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
One thing to remember is that the lenses with internal focusing design change their actual focal length when focusing, e.g. focal length decreases when the lens is focused closer. Adding the extension tubes to the lens changes that.
Will try to explain. The 300 mm IF lens without the extension tube will be focused at 10 meters (and its focusing mark will be set to ten meters), which will decrease the lens's focal length (let us hypothetically assume it will become 260mm, as I do not know real numbers) and thus will decrease the magnification of the lens. The lens with extension tubes that is again focused at 10 meters will cause focusing mark on the lens per se to be set NOT at 10 meters, but at a different distance, lets say 20 meters, thus the actual focal length of the lens will be longer than in previous case. Let us hypothetically assume it will become 280mm). Increase in the real focal length of the lens will increase the magnification. Adding even longer extension tube to achieve the maximum focusing distance of the lens+tube combo to be set at 10 meters will cause the lens focusing ring to be set to infinity, thus restoring marked focal length of 300mm, and maximum magnification. Please correct me if I am wrong Do not ask me about what happens with zoom lenses ![]() Alex |
||
Ultraviolet-induced visible fluorescence photography - A7, A77, NEX6, NEX6-FS - Gallery
|
||
![]() |
||
Pavel ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 23 April 2007 Country: Czech Republic Location: The Hague Status: Offline Posts: 2598 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I always thought adding ex.tube between the lens and camera will not change the magnification.At least no more then shifting the lens closer to the subject by the size of the ex.tube-s 12-20-36mm.In your case the lens is fixed to the tripod while keeping the 10m distance, so you actually moved the camera from the subject,or?
Perhaps somebody can explain to me where do I go wrong? Edited by Pavel - 31 May 2011 at 14:09 |
||
A-900+VG;16f/2.8fish;50f/1.4,Sig20f/1.8;Tammy 90f/2.8;Sony135STF;M200f/2.8HS;M 200 f/4 Macro;M 300f/4HS;Sony500f/8reflex;M600 f/4HS;M3x1xmacro;16-35CZ;24-70CZ;70-200SSM;70-400SSM;1.4xTc;2xTc
|
||
![]() |
||
Alex H ![]() Senior Member ![]() Knowledgebase Contributor Joined: 06 November 2008 Country: Sweden Location: Stockholm Status: Offline Posts: 1591 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I think it was in J. Shaw's book "Closeups in Nature" where he discussed this thing, but I do not have the book any more to check this. I would expect at least difference in sharpness/micro-contrast/resolution between different combinations, but I too did not try it myself, even though nothing stops me from doing this. Should try this weekend.
Thanks for Your test, Frank Alex |
||
Ultraviolet-induced visible fluorescence photography - A7, A77, NEX6, NEX6-FS - Gallery
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
Page 12> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.086 seconds.

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania
Feel free to contact us if needed.