Extension Tubes or Canon Close-up Lens Adapter?

[soundhound]

I want to do some macro work, and would like some advise on whether extension tube (s) or the Canon close-up lens adapter would be the better way to go.

The lenses I would be using them with would be either the 24-70 2.8 L or the 70-300 2.8 L USM IS. I'm aware that the 70-300 mm lens would need the close-up adapter lens.

I guess I'd like to know which route would yield better macro photos - the 24-70 with extension tubes or the 70-300 with the Canon close-up adapter. What would be the approximate distance to subject with either combination, and which would yield the best quality?

Thanks in advance!

[soundhound]

Correction to above - the lens is not a 70-300mm, but rather the 70-200mm....

[Tony Printezis]

I had asked the same question here. I'm personally leaning towards the extension tubes given that I can use them on any lens, irrespective of filter size.


Tony

[George Slusher]

I'm personally leaning towards the extension tubes given that I can use them on any lens, irrespective of filter size.

You can do the same thing with step-up rings, which are cheap. I have a Canon 77mm 500D, which I can use on any telephoto lens I have, includingmy 100mm f/2.8 Macro. (The 500D is not designed for lenses under 70mm focal length. For those, use the 250D.) I mostly carry it to use on my 100-400mm L IS, instead of carrying the Macro lens.


Some other considerations:

1. Using extension tubes will lose light and lead to a slower shutter speed, wider aperture, and/or higher ISO. Extension tubes work by moving the lens further away from the sensor. That makes the image circle of the lens larger, spreading the same light over a wider area, so less light falls on any particular section of the sensor. (Calculating the exposure correction for manual exposures used to require at least an MS in math, but modern auto exposure pretty much takes care of it.)
2. Depending upon the particular extension tube you use, you may lose auto exposure and auto focus. Don't even consider the really cheap extension tubes for that reason. Get the Canon or Kenko DG tubes.
3. As others said, extension tubes don't do much with longer focal-length lenses. Using longer extension tubes will make the light loss even greater and greatly reduce the furthest focal point.
4. For serious work, don't bother with cheap "close-up lenses," either, though they work in a pinch and are cheap. The Canon 500D, on the other hand, is a 2-element lens that corrects for a lot of distortion.
5. The working distance range with the Canon 500D is very narrow. You can change the magnification with a zoom lens, but the working distance doesn't change very much.

[Daniel Browning]

I'm think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with close up adapter would better. Also consider another option you could combine for macro: teleconverters.

[Jon Ruyle]

Rarely do I disagree with Daniel, but in this case I would recommend the extension tubes because you are not adding optics to degrade the image as close-up lenses and telecoverters will (of course, the 70-200 may be optimized for longer focus distances, but in practice I haven't noticed loss of iq in closeups with it). However, I admit that the teleconverter solution is probably the most versatile (I also admit that I've only rarely used close up lenses, so my opinion on that might not be worth much).


One way to squeeze versatility out of a zoom lens with extension tubes is to change focal length. Since extension tubes have more effect on shorter lenses, if your subject is too small to be captured at 200mm, you can zoom out a little and get closer.


At 200mm, you'll need longish extension tubes. I recommend the kenko set.

[Daniel Browning]

I thought the OP was deciding between 24-70+extension -VS- 70-200+closeup. If 70-200+extension was an option, I might have given a different answer.

I would recommend the extension tubes because you are not adding optics to degrade the image as close-up lenses and telecoverters will

In the case of the 70-200 I think you're right. I haven't tested it, but I know that the alternatives (particularly a close up filter) provide a superior image on other lenses. It just depends on how much the extender degrades the image (due to aberrations in the lens itself) vs how much the close up degrades the image. It would be nice if there was some more tests on this available somewhere.

[Jon Ruyle]

I thought the OP was deciding between 24-70+extension -VS- 70-200+closeup. If 70-200+extension was an option, I might have given a different answer.

Ah... soundhound did say that, you're right. I don't tend to like to use shorter lenses with extension tubes because there is so little working distance.