fetzler Loc: North West PA

You have forgotten there are many ways to use extension tubes. One might use extension tubes to let a telephoto lens focus a bit closer. No macros here and auto focus will work just fine.

When working near 1x autofocus is indeed pretty useless. In part, this is the case as magnification changes with focus. Auto extension tubes allow one use the auto exposure modes in the camera. For some camera this means that you have the aperture control.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

One detail is that when they are mounted, they may not all make electrical contact so you will get an Error showing up on the back screen. Just unlock each tube, turn slightly, turn back, and let it "click" solidly into place. Repeat with the other tubes and then with the lens. Generally that is all that is needed to get communication going.
If it drops out of communication too often, or all the time, then you have a problem.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

When using a lens with an extension tube to achieve 1x magnification, the sensor is not seeing the whole cone of light from the lens. This sensor is only seeing the middle portion of the light cone. And that middle portion is spread out effectively making the light density be less than it would be without the extension tube.

In my previous explanation, I wasn't talking magnification. I was talking about the amount of light cone be used compared to the amount not being used as an extension tube is added.

petrochemist Loc: UK

If you're using a mirrorless camera you can often adapt a SLR lens via a helicoid, such that it will focus to infinity with the helicoid at it shortest. It's quite easy to get a very short extension with such a set up.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

my advise. attach them, put camera on a tripod. start taking pix. you'll pick it up pretty quickly,

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

Auto or manual? That makes a difference. If they are auto tubes, you may have problems with the image being too dark to focus.
I don't use many tubes, just enough to get a little magnification, then I don't have any problems using the tubes. Going 1 to 1 will mean that you have to use a tripod.
If you use a fast SS, you can do away with the tripod, but then you have the problem of noise. There are no silver bullets. Everything has a price.

petrochemist Loc: UK

The price here is having to add your own light, and learning to diffuse it appropriately :)
Many macro photographers hand hold & use flash to keep the speeds up. This is particularly the case when shooting insects as they move so tripods with natural light are often not a solution.

ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

https://youtu.be/ruCVnGsPIbo

You might find this helpful.......

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Most bellows do not support AF on modern lenses. Novoflex makes some that do, but they are very expensive! (Bellows are essentially extra long, adjustable extension tubes.)

Cheap extension tubes with no electronic contacts also don't support AF. But better ones with the electronic contacts do.

Sometimes AF is useful with extension tubes, especially when using them to make long telephotos focus a little closer than they are normally able. See the examples I posted earlier. Shots done with 70-200mm, 300mm and 500mm lenses all used AF. Some of the others did, too.

At higher magnification, it's probably easier to use manual focus techniques. Moving closer to or farther from the subject is a common way to focus on really small subjects.

But the reason to get tubes with electronic contacts is not limited to AF, by any means. Far more important is to be able to control the lens aperture. The "cheap, dumb" tubes that lack electronic contacts don't provide any means of doing that with many modern lenses. On those types of tubes a lens with it's own mechanical means of controlling the aperture can work, and there might even be a work-around to do so on electronic aperture lenses. But that's usually a complicated, slow process... a real pain in the arse.

Finally, some lenses have image stabilization, which won't be functional with the dumb tubes, but is supported by the tubes that have electronic contacts. The effectiveness of image stabilization is reduced at higher magnifications, but even a little is better than none.

P.S. Another response mentions the difficulty getting a steady shot at high magnifications, making a tripod useful a lot of the time when you can't get fast enough shutter speed. And slower speeds often are needed to offset using a smaller lens aperture for as much depth of field as you can get, because it gets very thin at high magnifications.

Another solution is to use a flash. There are flashes made specifically for macro work... twin lights (two small flash heads) and ring lights. Personally I prefer a twin light for magnifications up to 1:1 or maybe 2:1... but for any higher magnification than that I will often use a ring light. To me ring lights make too flat lighting effect at anything other than very high magnifications.

I also often just use a single, standard flash. I put a couple layers of white gauze over the flash head to diffuse it and reduce the output (otherwise it will over-power close-ups), put it on an off-camera shoe cord and hand hold it. The diffused, larger flash acts like a "giant softbox in the sky" to a small subject. The light tends to "wrap around" the subject. If the flash is set to be the dominant light source, it also can cause the background to go dark, as in the following example (where a tangle of grasses was distracting, Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens)...


This is the flash setup I used for above image.


This isn't a macro shot by any means, but I used my macro twin light for gentle fill (background was a piece of black velvet hung behind the flowers, Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens)...


This is the macro twin light rig used for above image, which I prefer for shots up to 1:1 or a little more. The ring in front allows the two flash heads to be attached to the front of many lenses. But I use a Lepp/Stroboframe bracket the heads are mounted upon in the photo, because it allows a lot more flexibility positioning the heads for various lighting effects...


The freshly hatched snail below was only about five or six millimeters across and was shot at approx. 3.5:1 magnification, with the camera and lens (Canon MP-E 65mm, manual focus) on a tripod and a ring light. Also note the extremely shallow depth of field, even though the lens was stopped down to f/16 (which with the extension of the lens is approx. an effective f/75)...


This is the macro ring light I use for ultra high magnification shots like above...

User ID

No hey problemo ! Been that way since the very beginning. Nothing new there.

If you know what youre doing, do what you know. If not then use the tech at hand and its the same result. Tech at hand dates to the late 1960s. There has been no need for calculations or for any knowledge of "light cones" for over 50 years ... and that includes fully manual tubes. Exception would be using flash. If flash is in use, make that only 40 years.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That Flood Light Computer brings back memories. I had quite a few of those "computers" back in the day. I still do, actually.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Lots of meaningful thoughtful replies in this thread...
As such it merits bookmarking for those who think they may venture into enhanced magnification. :}
As eventually so many who shoot commercially have.

I shoot Nikon bodies and indeed started with the Kenko Auto Set for Nikon, which can work well for lighter pieces of kit albeit once you use the vintage PK-11; PK-12; PK-13 and yes even the awesome PN-11! With the robust build of the Nikon tubes you'll likely quickly abandon those fragile third party solutions (at least I did).

That said, once you've advanced to the point you are able to critically analyze your work you'll sadly see that the hit on acuity for working outside an optic's design parameters becomes somewhat unacceptable.
Not knocking "tubes" since they open a wonderful world of higher magnification (thus the price of degraded resolution is lost in the thrill of "Wow!" this is so neat!)

Stepping back in time to my film days... I used a bellows, which allowed both front & rear mounts to be moved (Sweet!) Believe those who take this seriously use the same workflow to "Stack" sets of many incremental captures. The problem I've run into is there are so many more effective ways of generating a revenue stream (a.k.a. portraiture) that I've pretty much not wasted time playing with "micro" "micro" or whatever.

Bottom Line? It's all about illumination, in time if you stay the course you may also arrive at this inference.

Again many thanks for all who contributed here (and especially those who actually documented their inferences with imagery.) Wishing all a very wonderful holiday season! cheers! Thomas

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm not questioning the quality of the Nikon extension tubes...

However, they don't have electronic contacts, so cannot be used with Nikon E and Nikon G lenses. There's no means of controlling the lens aperture, which is done electronically on those lenses.

And the vast majority of modern Nikon lenses are either E or G type. In fact, currently 62 out of 77 Nikon F-mount lenses that B&H Photo lists are E or G type. The PK and PN tubes from Nikon simply won't work with any of those E and G lenses! If those are what's in your kit, you'll have no choice but to buy one of the third party extension tube sets... Kenko, Vello, etc... costing between $50 and $130, which also support AF and, if the lens has it, VR.

As to the quality of the third party macro tubes... Yeah, some of them that I've seen are questionable: plasticky, weak latch mechanisms, etc.

However, my Kenko set is virtually identical build quality as my Canon tubes. Both the Kenko and the Canon tubes are quite well made and have worked without concern with hefty gear.

Now, my Kenko set is old... I've had it for 15 or 20 years (and is Canon mount). In fact, the Kenko tubes (and the Canon tubes) don't accommodate the Canon EF-S lenses, which were first introduced in 2004. Later Kenko tubes (and Canon "II" series tubes) work with both EF and EF-S lenses.

But maybe the newer Kenko aren't as well made as my old set. I really don't know. I haven't used the newer ones.

The Viltrox set I have for my mirrorless kit is also seem reasonably well made (and Canon doesn't make tubes for their mirrorless yet). These tubes are probably plastic, but the camera and lenses are lightweight (compared to my DSLR gear), so they work fine.

Silverman Loc: Michigan

I am interested in investigating Micro Photography with my 50mm or 85mm. What is Best Extension Tube combination would be best to try first, I have 3 Kenko Extension tubes that were Set.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

There is no 'best', it comes down to what you want to achieve and at what quality and size.

I have spent much time using extension tubes over the years to get greater magnification than my 1:1 macro lens can give. My initial aim will be to produce a picture at a certain pixel width at a quality I am happy with.

The final result (image) will be determined by the subject/subject interest, magnification used, steadiness of the subject, steadiness of the camera/lens, lighting and your ability at post processing.