DWU2
Loc: Phoenix Arizona area
I'd say between the 2 choices you offer, the extension tubes are optically better. But, the best choice would be a true macro lens.
Interesting.
I would think between the two, hollow extension tubes may be better as the lens optics themselves are not altered, other than altering the focal length of the lens.
Additional glass on the other hand, if not designed and ground well, could mess up the image.
Pstrykacz wrote:
Strictly from the picture quality point of view, w... (
show quote)
Your options call for the tubes to be superior.
Yup - get tubes that have the correct contacts for your camera. I use Kenko. they work perfectly and cost less than the OEM versions. (They feed the data from the lens to the cam, but do not indicate to the camera that they are in place, so you have to keep notes of when they are installed).
I've had good results with tubes. They are good at the low focal lengths in a sense because to find the magnification it is the extension length divided by the focal length, plus add back the lenses 'native' magnification. So 25mm of extension on a 50mm lens would give you at least .5x max magnification. On the other hand distortion and lens problems can also be magnified, especially at the lower end. Plus you have to get so close to the subject you put the lens in your own light. Also you lose f stops with magnification. Count on one stop for .5x magnification and 2 stops for 1x
Calculator and more info
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm
BTW - the item for which you provided the link is typically called a diopter.
A "macro lens" is typically a whole lens, designed for close-up work, that mounts on the camera.
Pstrykacz wrote:
Strictly from the picture quality point of view, w... (
show quote)
Something like that will get you close to .5x magnification. Meaning a one wide subject could be a half inch wide on your sensor.
Contrary to what others have said, the extension tubes are only as good as the lens you put in front of them.
I use dedicated macro lenses, Nikor 65 and Nikor 105 Micro, with and without the tubes. They are much better than the 18-300 with or without tubes. As the man once said, it depends!
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
extension tubes with a good lens work .also a quality macro lens .at around $ 60 for the tubes , it allow you to experiment with different lenses .i use MIKE brand tubes , no issue there .
Pstrykacz wrote:
Strictly from the picture quality point of view, w... (
show quote)
I bought a couple of old film-era macro lenses that, even after purchasing adapters, were quite inexpensive. They are much more convenient than using extension tubes and my experience with the front add-on macro adapter is that there is a significant loss of quality.
However, I just noticed that you use a Nikon camera. I switched to Sony soon after discovering how adverse Nikon is to giving any support for non-Nikon lenses; with a Nikon camera I'd not advise using other than Nikon lenses.
speaking from experience, you're better off with the tubes
Has anyone tried extension tubes with a zoom lens?
My extension tubes work perfectly with my Sony 50mm f1.8 prime but I cannot get any focus with my Sony 24-105mm f4 zoom.
Am I doing something wrong? Asking because the OP references for use with a zoom lens.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.