GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

So a question for you and others: It would save a lot of weight when traveling to take tubes instead of a separate macro lens. Is there a difference in quality of results or ease of use vs. a macro?

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

I would think that since the macro is designed for such it might provide a better image IQ than a non-macro with extension tubes. May be faster too because of my comment above since the image is projected onto the sensor with smaller overlap than with extension tubes. But I have not done this test, so this is pure speculation.

Best,

Mike

Leitz Loc: Solms

A macro lens will always be better at close distances, but a decent non-macro lens should suffer little or no loss of image quality from its closest focus distance without tubes to at least 1:1 with tubes.

Curve_in Loc: Virginia

If weight and traveling are important, I'd look into a set of close up diopter filters. By not taking the lens off, you'll get less dust inside. I just bring everything and don't worry about the weight.

zundapp5 Loc: Portugal

Add extension tubes to your 200-400 to achieve magnification 1: 1, and then tell us how much light you lose!

:mrgreen:

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

[quote=amfoto1]Nikon's own macro extension tubes are fine, but most of them do not support autofocus and they're only sold individually, making their cost rather high. Currently the 27.5mm PK-13 alone sells for $99, nearly as much as the Kenko set. The 14mm PK-12 costs about $85 and the 8mm PK-11A (which does support AF) costs $89. [quote]

None of the Nikon PK tubes support auto focus. Nor does the PN-11. They all do allow auto diaphragm operation.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

With tubes with electrical contacts your in-camera meter compensates for the light loss, which is why you didn't notice.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Wbnl

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

90% of what I do is macro.

Based on my experience (and many others, BTW), there is no substitute for a true macro lens which by definition focuses to 1:1. By design, the results to a discriminating eye, will be sharper edge-to-edge over the entire image. If you already have one, and macro is a significant part of what you do. Take the lens.

Secondly, extension tubes absolutely result in a loss of light. You can easily verify this by shooting the same object in un-changing light with and without.

The other thing you will find: extending the lens will also make it more difficult to hold steady the added weight--and you may need to shorten the shutter duration to capture a sharp image.

But here's what I would do: take the macro lens AND the extension tubes. Or add a supplemental lens such as the Raynox. ;-)

terlap Loc: Everett, Washington

I have already used extension tubes on a 200-400 f4 Nikon lens and did not lose anything. I was shooting at high f stops as well.
Don't know what you are talking about.
You may be thinking teleconverters...

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

you lose light, its a simple fact.
60mm extension and 200mm lens loses about 1/2 stop.
50mm lens and 60mm extension loses about 1 1/2 stops.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I absolutely know the difference between a teleconverter and extension tubes-- and loss of light is science-- not my opinion.

From the Digital School of Photography:

"Here are some basic facts about extension tubes which every photographer aspiring to do macro photography should know.

Extension tubes are metal tubes which has a camera body mount at one end and a rear lens mount at the other.
They are hollow tubes and do not have any lens elements in them.
As extension tubes do not add any extra lens element to the equation it does not alter the quality of the image in any way. Image quality depends solely on the quality of the lens mounted on the tubes. So image quality should not be the criteria when choosing between different brands of extension tubes, instead you should choose one that has a better build quality especially if you intend to mount heavier lenses on it.
When using extension tubes the lens will not focus to infinity. The focus range will be greatly limited to a very close focusing distance. So you are effectively gaining the ability to focus at very close distances by sacrificing the lens’s ability to focus at very far distances.
Regardless of the type or make of extension tubes there is always a loss of light when extension tubes are used, the greater the length of the tube the greater the light loss, you will need to compensate for this when setting your exposure; but your TTL meter will be able to tell you the variables.
If you plan on using relatively new macro or fast wide angle lenses which feature floating elements, it is recommended that you set the lens to close focus rather than setting it for infinity focus for better image quality."

RodL Loc: Down Under

your right but you do effectively loose EV and have to correct for the reduced amount of light as you have stated because the image effectively covers a greater area, similar exposure compensation that is required when using a cropped sensor camera with full frame lenses. ie + 0.6 stops when using FF lens with aps-c sensor camera, but different exposure compensation values required depending on extension tube length.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :D :thumbup: :thumbup:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The above is a common misconception. In fact the use of tubes can reduce image quality in two ways. Specifically for a lens that does not use Internal Focus design it is impossible to provide low astigmatism over a wide range of focus distances. Non macro lenses are optimized for focus at longer distances, and the use of extension tubes will increase astigmatism beyond the design target of the lens. The longer the extension, the more astigmatism. That will probably be less true for macro lenses, but will still be operative.

For Internal Focus designs everything about the lens is designed around the fixed sensor to lens distance. Putting an extension tube between the camera and such a lens is guaranteed to cause higher aberrations of several kinds! Notice that Nikon simply stopped designing new versions of their extension tubes, and bellows too, when they started making macro lenses with Internal Focus designs. Prior to that many macro lenses had matched extension tubes, but that is not true with modern macro lenses.

The essence is that with modern lenses (particularly non-macro lenses) you are much better off not using extension tubes. Teleconverters work extremely well at macro distance, and are usually a better choice with better image quality.

The older non-IF macro lenses of course work rather well with extension tubes. Also for special circumstances such as using microscope objective lenses, or enlarging lenses, extension tubes work quite well.

That is true for critical work. For beginners who haven't yet developed the eye to see the differences, extension tubes do provide an low cost entry into the world of macro.


If you choose to use extension tubes, this is very good advice. It is particularly true if using tubes on longer focal length lenses where the weight can be significant.

Leitz Loc: Solms

No one is thinking of teleconverters. We're talking about the need to increase exposure when using extension tubes. The more extension, the more exposure must be increased.

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

[quote=Apaflo]For Internal Focus designs everything about the lens is designed around the fixed sensor to lens distance. Putting an extension tube between the camera and such a lens is guaranteed to cause higher aberrations of several kinds! Notice that Nikon simply stopped designing new versions of their extension tubes, and bellows too, when they started making macro lenses with Internal Focus designs. Prior to that many macro lenses had matched extension tubes, but that is not true with modern macro lenses./quote]

I would think the lens designer would attempt to produce an image flat field across the sensor for best sharpness across the sensor as well. By moving the lens to sensor distance either forward or back one could disturb this and cause more loss of sharpness in the sensor corners. Of course a counter to this would be the effective image plane is larger when the lens is moved further from the sensor and could achieve a flatter field across the sensor. It seems this would depend on a particular lens design and the amount of extension.

Would be an interesting experiment for someone with more available time than I have!!

BTW I did try and use teleconverters awhile back but the results were poor, but I was using a Tamron 2X converter which may have been the problem. I have a Nikon 1.7 tele which I might try someday.

Most of my macro work now is beyond 1:1 and is with microscope objectives and "tube" lens, or just the 105mm for 1:1.

Best,

Mike