Bendmac Loc: Bend, Oregon

Search returned no love, at least on the Savage...

Not quite a beginner but certainly no expert, shooting a Nikon D3300 with the two kit lenses plus a 35mm f/1.8 G DX lens. Interested in learning some macro stuff and just experimenting around some...

Curious on you folks' take on which might be a better option...the Savage Macro Art, which is variable from 55-71mm, or a set of the Kenco tubes, which come in 12, 20 and 36mm. Obvious advantage to the Savage is having the variability in just one unit, instead of the Kenco's "add one, subtract one" method.

The Savage starts ABOVE (55mm) where the largest Kenco tube ends (36mm, although 'stacking' the Kencos gives basically the same range) and I'm a liitle confused as to whether "more is better" or simplicity is the rule here...

Thanks for the input!

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Never heard of the Savage but it looks interesting if somewhat limited with the rather long extension range.
I think you would need to determine what lens you would mainly be using and what magnification(s) you would want before choosing between the two options.
As to 'more is better', the magnification achieved by a given extension tube length is a factor of the focal length of the lens being used and its maximum native magnification.
For example, a 50mm lens that produces a maximum native magnification of .25:1 will, with a 36mm extension will yield a .97:1 magnification
where as that same 36mm extension tube on a 100mm lens with the same .25:1 native magnification will only yield a .61:1 magnification.
Hope this helps.

jonfrei

I have a set (mine are Vello — 12, 20 & 36mm also). I find that I use the 20mm a lot more than any other size/combination, and sometimes even the 12 is almost too much. It’s rare that I use the 36mm, though I have stacked them all up for the full 62mm on more than one occasion. The Savage, at $198.99, is more than twice the Vello set at $79.95, and significantly more than the Kenco at $123.95 (all prices current from BHPhoto.com). I can see where there would be a significant convenience factor if you stayed in the 55-71mm range, but personally I don’t think I would find myself using it that much. If I really needed more than 62mm, I would likely pop for another set of the Vello — being nothing more than an empty tube, there is no optical cost to using more... The Vello support auto-focus and exposure metering just fine.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I know nothing about the quality of the Savage. It looks like a variable extension tube while the Kenkos require adding / subtracting to obtain the desired magnification.

Bendmac Loc: Bend, Oregon

Thank you all for the quick and informative replies!

After viewing those and doing some additional research, I settled on getting a set of the Kencos...let the experimenting begin! ☺

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

More is not necessarily better sometimes... and definitely isn't in this case.

I would recommend the Kenko (not Kenco) tube set because it has shorter extensions, which make it a lot more versatile for use with various lenses and situations. It gives you seven different possible amounts of extension: 12mm, 20mm, 36mm... or pair up two tubes for 32mm, 36mm, 48mm... or all three tubes for 68mm. I ALWAYS have a few extension tubes with me (just in case) and use them with lenses fro 20mm to 500mm, rarely use more than a single tube.

The Savage is basically just an adjustable extension tube covering only a small portion of the range possible with the Kenko set of three. And it's only the longest extent of that range, so is only going to provide high magnification and won't be be usable at all with shorter focal length lenses... such as your 35mm. Putting 55mm of extension on a lens with focal length shorter than 100 or 150mm will make only very high magnifications and will put the subject extremely close to or possibly even touching the front element of the lens. 55mm extension on a 35mm lens will likely only be able to focus on something INSIDE the lens!

I also don't know the construction of the Savage... might be fine. Or it might be rather plasticky that may not be up to use with heavier lenses and cameras. I know the Kenko are pretty well made (mine are versy similar and comparable to Canon OEM extension tubes... which are only sold individually and each typically cost as much as the entire Kenko set).

This was shot with a 20mm lens with a 12mm extension tube (flower petals were in focus when touching the front element of the lens!)....


This was shot with a 50mm lens and 20mm of extension...


Here I used an 85mm lens with 20mm extension...


This was shot with a vintage 90mm macro lens (1:2 max mag), with a 20 or 25mm ext. tube...


Here I used a 25mm extension on a 70-200mm zoom lens...


Here to make a 300mm lens focus a little closer than it usually can, I used a 36mm extension...


The 36mm extension was used here on a 500mm lens for the same reason...


EDIT: I didn't know that Savage variable extension was selling for $200! The last time I saw one of those, about a year ago (in another brand, but probably the same manufacturer) it was selling for $110.

I think there are only three actual manufacturers of macro extension tubes: Kenko, Zeikos and Opteka. The Kenko are the best quality, 12/20/36mm size and are only sold under their own brand name. Opteka are a little more plasticky and less expensive, have a different release mechanism, the same 12/20/36mm sizes... and sell under various other names as well: Vello, etc. The Zeikos are also less expensive and more plasticky, use a "tab" style release and come in unusual 13mm, 21mm and 31mm lenghts... and sell under a wide variety of different brand names. There's even a lower priced "economy" version of the Zeikos-manufactured tubes, with plastic bayonet mounts (not sure if Opteka has a similar cheaper downgrade version).

Usually the Opteka and Zeikos are only sold in sets of three... though I've seen large retailers like B&H and Adorama sell individual tubes for around $25 apiece.

Not sure if they still do, but Kenko used to offer individual 12mm and 25mm tubes, in addition to their set of three.

There are even cheaper "dumb" tube sets (often under $20)... without electronic contacts to allow autofocus to work. Actually, a lot of macro work is more easily done using manual focus techniques. HOWEVER, the tubes without contacts also don't provide means of adjusting the aperture of many modern lenses. This is a very big problem, so I only recommend them for use with vintage lenses or modern ones that have a mechanical aperture control ring on the lens itself (some Nikkor are still being made that way). But they will be manual only... both focus and aperture control... and will be slower to work with. Not sure if it's worth the savings, but those sets often have a whole bunch of different sizes and even more possible combinations. And they're dirt cheap.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Just a brief comment on manual focus v. auto focus for macro photography. Many long time macro photographers swear by manual focus. It works for them with their specific methodologies—so that’s all good.

Most focus stacking applications require manual focus because otherwise the camera would refocus with each movement which of course defeats the purpose.
However. I have done tethered focus stacking that requires autofocus to set the begin point and the end point. Helicon Remote is one such app.
The second reason to use AF is that when the eyes go, it becomes a necessary tool. Autofocus has improved greatly so it’s no longer a “requirement” to do manual focus for macro.