bellgamin Loc: Ewa Beach, Hawaii

I want to experiment with macro a bit, so I want to do it on the cheap. I have read of 2 el cheapo methods:

1) extension tubes

2) macro filters (you know, those +1 +4 +10 sets - what is the correct name of them I wonder)

Which is better, 1 or 2?

Oh yes, just remembered --- focusing rails ... I assume they will attach to any standard tripod screw-it-on gizmo. Correct?

BebuLamar

Extension tube is better.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Extension tubes. You best have a tripod also

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

You might want to post this question in the Macro Section of this forum where you will gets lots of knowledgeable advice. If you buy cheap tubes they probably won't be able to 'talk' to the camera electronically which will mean there is no automatic focus to help you. Also even the tubes with an electrical contact will only focus on close-up subjects and not subjects in the distance. There are lots of options and things to be taken into consideration which those experts in the Macro section will be happy to define for you. Good luck, we need more macro shooters in the world so welcome, you will enjoy it.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Add on single element +dioptre lenses can cause loss of fine detail, and might give a softness around the central region of the shot. Extension tubes should retain the clarity of the main lens, but will mean that you lose some light reaching the sensor, but that should be adjusted by the electronics of the lens and camera body.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

If you want to experiment, then cheap can be OKish, but don't expect the best results.

Begin with some cheap extension tubes. They will not degrade the IQ of whatever lens you use. Good extension tubes - robust with autofocus support cost more.

The 'macro filters' you speak of are most accurately called 'close up lenses'. The cheap ones will degrade your lens IQ. There are some good ones - Canon 250D and 500D - that are dual element lenses, but they are far from cheap.

Macro lenses tend to be expensive because macro is optically demanding for top quality results.

What camera and lens(es) are you planning to work with?

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

You could play with both if the budget allows. I agree with BebuLamar, that the tubes are probably better. At least optically, there's no glass getting between the lens and subject. The add on lenses well, you're adding glass to the formula of what ever lens you put them on. They will magnify your subject but in turn they may also distort the subject. Neither is right or wrong, just depends on what you're trying to achieve in your images.

Distortion can be a very creative thing if that's what you're trying to achieve, you may also get really tack sharp magnified images too. That will most certainly depend on the quality of the lenses you're adding up front. Extension tube sets are not very expensive, from the really cheap no frills to sets that maintain your camera to lens communication. That's a moot point with the filters, your lens is still directly connected anyway.

The filters are quicker to work with in the field, and cleaner for your camera if while shooting you find you need more magnification, no need to break down the lens to add a tube. So it's really up to you and your budget, they each have their pros and cons. If it's in the budget get both, hell you could even try using them together. Once you decide, come back and post some of what you're getting, happy shooting.

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

You won't be able to do distant subjects with the add on magnifiers either.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Your question, A or B. Perhaps the better question is not OR, rather AND/OR.... Neither/Nor does not logically apply here. For very well presented information combining a 100mm Macro with Extension Tubes Google the following: [sorry URL was copy blocked]
GOOGLE: An Exercise in Magnification with Extension Tubes • Martin Bailey

This site has charts and photo examples of a mm scale demonstrating the clarity and magnification.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Short of a real macro lens, tubes are the best bet by far. IMHO KENKO AF tubes are the best bet out there.

chkeith83

Focusing rails (double rails with a bellows) are a very powerful option, and have the advantage of being very stable, but, of course, they will never be automatic!

Also, if you have a microscope with a mount that you can use (local college is often a great place to use one) will give you superb quality, but, of course, will never be automatic.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Kenko are very well reviewd on various camera brands, but not exactly 'el cheapo'. Less than Nikon (or Canon), but not the $20 level, which may be what the OP is looking for...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I would suggest extension tubes - manual, for about $15.

bellgamin Loc: Ewa Beach, Hawaii

@EnglishBrenda -- No macro forum for me on the drop down menu. Probably off limits to those who have only just learned how to spell m.a.c.r.o. sigh 😕

@rdubrueil (hope I spelled that right) -- never thought about the in-the-field aspect. Good point!

@all -- extension tubes then. Thank you all, to the nth power of pi!

oops, I forgot that someone asked which lens I planned to use. I plan to use 50mm f1.4 lens. okay choice?

olsonsview

Why not purchase a used manual focus macro lens to fit your camera? Macro shooters, working up to 1:1 never use auto focus or VR capabilities.
Manual focus, especially with a focus rail you asked about, on a tripod, is the cheapest, quality way to go. You may even find a used autofocus macro lens, without VR for a low price. Then you can use auto exposure. The only cheap macro method that works well is reversing a good lens. The closeup filters are usually less than good, and extension tubes work OK, but work way better with a macro lens on the end of them. Good Luck!