leftyD500 Loc: Ocala, Florida

I shoot with the Nikon Z6 and lenses are Nikon Z24-200mm and Nikon Z100-400mm. I love my outfit. My only wish is that the Z100-400 would allow closer focusing. So, I am asking for advice. Would a closeup lens on the Z100-400mm work better than an extension tube?

Bill_de Loc: US

It would depend on how close you are looking to get.

If the lens accepts a 2x tele-convertor, that might even fit the bill.

---

---

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I believe he means if the subject is close(er) (ie. 10-20 feet maybe), not bring a distant subject closer.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I guess it depends on what it is you are actually trying to capture; close up or actual macro? For what it is worth, it may behoove you just to break down and buy the Z50mm MC lens. It is not super expensive, it is a prime, it is moderately sharp and allows for macro shots. Plus it is light and easy to carry in your pocket or bag. I carry it with two lenses (24-70/70-200)and a FTZ adaptor for my Z9 until I can fully convert over to all Z lenses.

charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

I have just bought a Sony a7Rv.
I also bought a Tamron 50mm - 400mm lens to go with it.
It has performed perfectly for everything I do.
I don't know if it will mate properly to your Nikon but I would suggest calling their Tech Support and see.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Speaking from experience, extension tubes are a great approach for exactly what you want to do. I am using a Canon 100-400mm lens and extension tubes allow me to focus at shorter distances than I could otherwise. Credit goes to UHH member CHG_CANON for recommending that to me. 400 mm gives a nice narrow field of view and a generous working distance from the subject.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

An extender will be better as it will not introduce added glass not dedicated to the lens.
In either case to get infinity again you will need to take deliberate action to remove the extension or the filter.
Personally I would use the extension and that is what I do use in the form of a bellows generally but tubes work extremely well in your case to keep lens functionality.

bikerguy

There are pros and cons to high quality close up lenses and extension tubes. To begin with close up lenses add more magnification to long lenses and extension tubes add more magnification to wider lenses. Th website Cambridgeincolour has calculators that will provide exact magnification increases. I use both extension tubes and the Canon 500D diopter (no long available new) depending upon the lens and needed magnification. Also, one of the cons with extension tubes is the need to remove the lens and teh possibility of introducing dust to the sensor, especially outdoors.

Canisdirus

If you don't mind being dedicated to closer shots...throw on a diopter... I'd say a +0.5 should do it...knock down minimum.

If you want infinity all of a sudden....filter has to come off...but when it is on...nice...very.

Don't cheap out on the Vivitar's and such...though a +0.5 will be hard to come by with the cheaper stuff.

TonyBot

Whoops. Wrong thread!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I assume you’re referring to a closeup filter that screws onto the lens. High quality ones give very good results at the center of the composition and that’s where most macro and closeup subject matter is located. Extension tubes give better quality across the field.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

At least part of the issue is that both of these options still result in a spherical plane of focus. A macro lens will almost always give you a flat plane of sharp focus.

User ID

Very true. The OP should get a 400mm macro. Acoarst it would be "only" about 200mm actual FL during close focusing (reasonably assuming IF design). Or, he could be realistic and follow his current perfectly useful approach. If budget will allow just get both the dioptre lens AND the tube. Each will prove more useful in different contexts and will also obviate the idea of crowd sourcing any opinions about an either-or choice. (I use both.)

User ID

A 0.5 dioptre has a far focus of about 200cm. The 100-400 has native focus down to 75cm.

The OP may find the overlap in the range of 75 to 200cm rather convenient ... or may find it wasteful. If simple availability issues forces using a 1.0 dioptre the far focus will be about 100cm, which is much less overlap, just the 75 to 100cm range.

Acoarst OTOH a 1.0 dioptre is also more optically compromising than a 0.5. Given that the Working Distance of the 100-400 at its native near limit is only about 20 inches it seems questionable what will be the benefit of any close focus accessories vs just cropping the image instead.

Maybe some users just need to fuss around with extra toys ? Maybe cropping away those "expensive" megapixels is distasteful ? With a native minimum working distance of 20 inches you can only go about 10 inches closer before youre blocking your light source. A 33% crop would accomplish the same framing without shortening the native 20 inches of working distance.

Its quite possible that this whole thread is in the UHH Sacred Tradition of much ado about nothing. Hard to say, lacking much input from the OP.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

True, but I doubt if the OP is looking to add a macro to his kit. He seems to only want to focus closer with his existing lens(s).