Macro Tubes and Close-up Filters ?

[BuckSkin]

I debated whether this was a Technique question or an Equipment question; it sits astraddle of the fence, but will probably end up on the Technique side.

Does anyone here use "Macro" tubes and/or close-up filters ?

We have two sets of Macro tubes; one set is electrical and the other not.

We also have a set of close-up filters for each size filter-thread/lens that we have; I think they are sets of four, but it may only be three.

I have fiddled around taking photos with one or the other, but hadn't in quite a while until last night, when I outfitted one of our Canon T3 with the electrical tubes, 18-55 "Kit" lens, and TTL Ring Flash.

One thing for certain, you may think you can hold a camera steady, until you are about an inch away from a bug with all three extension tubes incorporated; each heart-beat is like an earthquake.

[pontiac1940]

Oct 29, 2021 18:22:28 GMT BuckSkin said:

you may think you can hold a camera steady, until you are about an inch away from a bug with all three extension tubes incorporated

HA. No kidding.

I do not take a lot of macro photos, but there is always something to photograph with a macro lens. 

Way back, I used both tubes and macro "filters." I have a 30-year-old, 100-mm macro lens that I can use in my "new" camera with an adapter .. strictly MF. 

The other biggie with macro set ups is the narrow DOF.  

[BuckSkin]

Oct 29, 2021 18:33:11 GMT pontiac1940 said:

Way back, I used both tubes and macro "filters."

At the same time ?

Currently, I have two lens choices for my "dedicated" Macro rig; (actually three choices).

I thought they were identical, but apparently they are not = two 18-55mm "kit" lens; and, a 75-300mm Canon Zoom Lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III as per the link:

 www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Canon+75-300mm+lens&qid=1635532957&s=electronics&sr=1-3

I know there are situations when one may be the better choice over the other; but, for 90% of the close-up situations that may present themselves when one is not going to have the time to get prepared, which of the two lens would be the better choice to already have on the camera ?

I am thinking I will get a true Macro lens some time in the future, maybe a 100mm; but, until that day, I must work with what is at hand.

[Chris]

Oct 29, 2021 18:54:48 GMT BuckSkin said:

Currently, I have two lens choices for my "dedicated" Macro rig; (actually three choices).  two 18-55mm "kit" lens; and, a 75-300mm Canon Zoom Lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III as per the link:

 ...which of the two lens would be the better choice to already have on the camera ?

I am thinking I will get a true Macro lens some time in the future, maybe a 100mm; but, until that day, I must work with what is at hand.

Buckskin, if you have a crop frame camera body, I would suggest going with the 18-55mm for the average close up*. Its a faster lens than the 75-300 and the focal length is more practical. The 55 mm end is a good range for the average close up and you should be able to focus with the active extension tubes and or close up lenses. But the only way to be sure is to do some tests and experiments. 

There are lots of tricks to get macro shots with standard lenses. You can get some more ideas here:

Reverse Lens Macro Photography: A Beginner’s Guide
digital-photography-school.com/reverse-lens-macro-close-up-photography-lesson-3/#

Many years ago in my film days I was in a forest and saw a beautiful wild fox glove flower. I had no close up attachments with me. I took the lens off and reversed it and held it tightly to the camera body. I steadied the camera and lens on a rock. I used manual exposure. The picture came out sharp and in focus.  

Ultimately, you will get the best quality with a dedicated close up lens. You might want to check out Keh.com for a good deal on a used lens. I have a Canon 60mm EFS I got from them years ago and am very happy with it on my crop frame Canon. Another option would be the 100mm macro EF.

Using a 60mm macro on a crop frame body has a similar angle of view compared to a 100 mm on a full frame. Its a fine balance between getting a decent depth of field, allowing natural light to fall on the subject and not getting too close to spook the insect. A lower focal length lens will generally give you greater depth of field, but then you need to move in closer and risk cutting of the light or scaring the insect. A longer focal length allows you to get further away without blocking the light, but you will generally have a smaller depth of field and risk camera shake. 


Kind regards
Chris

*By the way, I found that the older Canon 18-55 non IS version has a better quality than the first generation 18-55 IS version. 

[BuckSkin]

Thanks for the information.

Although I have not yet tried it, I have read of using telextenders to enable getting farther away while still having the advantages of the tubes; I do have two 2x or +2 or whatever they are telextenders.

I have been using both tubes and close-up filters together and getting some super-close-up images, but it puts me right against my subject.

Even though I have the electrical tubes, I have not had much success with autofocus; I do, however, have good success with autofocus when using only a close-up filter.

Trying to focus with the ring is an effort in futility; what I have found works really well is to get the focus within range and then move the camera to and fro until everything becomes sharp.

We have accumulated two different versions of the Canon 18-55 lens and I never can remember which is which without looking at and checking the numbers/letters.

The Neewer Ring Flash has helped more than anything else; my only wish is that the little assist lights would stay lit for a much longer time; about the time I get down to brass tacks, the darn lights go out.

I need to figure out how to get in there and over-ride the time-out on them; companies design this stuff like batteries cost fifty bucks apiece and you only ever have one.