Macro photography on a budget

[nartreb]

In preparation for spring flowers, I just got a set of extension tubes by mail.

Less convenient than a 1:1 macro lens, but a lot cheaper (if you've already got a fast lens to use with them).

I'll try to get some example shots up in a few days.

Some notes:
- autofocus works, though I'm not sure how much I'll use it. If I'm using a tripod and remote shutter release, it's nigh impossible to get the autofocus to select the point I want and also have the composition I want.
Depth of field gets real narrow real fast, even with the iris stopped down.
Also, you have to be at roughly the right distance to begin with, which is not the same distance as when using the lens without the tube. Luckily the tubes come with a distance chart.
-Shooting handheld is actually possible, even without a flash. I haven't tested carefully enough to be sure whether IS is having a significant effect, but I think so.

My main reason for trying these first rather than a close-up lens (aka "close-up filter") is that these will work with lenses of any diameter. More chances to play with different combinations, without spending extra money.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I concur with the use of extension tubes. Do you know whether the Zeikos extension tubes only work with EF-s mount lenses, or can they also accommodate the full frame EF mount lenses?

I use an old set of Kenko extension tubes which is limited to EF mount lenses (which I had from the full frame film camera days of Canon). About a year ago I noticed that Kenko came out with a new set of extension tubes that is compatible with both EF and EF-s (cropped frame) lenses. I need to order those soon to be ready for the spring flower season. Thanks for the reminder.

Most of the large photo stores should only have the EF-s and EF compatible Kenko tubes in stock currently, but it is worth asking to be sure you get the proper set when ordering. The details are explained in this photo forum post.

I have been using my current Kenko extension tubes primarily with a 70-210 telephoto lens. The depth of field is indeed remarkably narrow. It took a bit of practice to learn to deal with the narrow depth of field. One needs to zoom the focal length first to do the initial "focus". That may seem strange, but it works because most of the telephoto zoom settings will not be able to focus at all at a particular distance to the subject. After the initial zoom the camera should be able to auto focus from there. Occasionally manual focus becomes necessary.

Focusing with "normal" range zoom lenses is generally easier, which is why I need to acquire the EF-S compatible extension tubes soon.

It also takes a bit of trial and error to find the correct amount of extension for a given situation. The three tubes can be used individually and in combination. But over time I have learned to estimate the amount of needed extension very well. But there was a definite learning curve to arrive at that expertise.

 

[nartreb]

Yep, the Zeikos tubes for Canon feature both the little white square (EF-S compatibility) and the red dot (EF). EF-S has the same electrical connections as EF. If a body (or tube) fits EF-S lenses, it'll fit EF lenses too.

Canon added a protrusion on EF-S lenses mounting rings so they wouldn't fit on existing EF bodies. The reason for enforcing incompatibility is that EF-S lenses reach back further towards the sensor. If the body isn't designed with this in mind, you can get collisions with the mirror. But that's not a problem for extension tubes.

Also you *can* use many EF-S lenses on EF bodies if you're careful and if you're willing to . modify your EF-S lens to fit into an EF-only mount.

 

[nartreb]

Here's a decent illustration of the magnifying power of the tubes, even if it's not a particularly artistic shot.

Both shots uncropped.

Lupines in my kitchen (shot at night using the celing light, no flash) at 105mm and f/8 without tubes, camera body on tripod at a working distance about a foot:

With the full stack of three tubes, lens at 99mm (not counting tubes), f/16, camera body mounted to tripod in same spot (lens closer by length of tubes):

(Look closely near the right edge and you can see a blurry curve caused by a hair stuck somewhere inside the camera body...)

 

[NeoAkela]

I haven't tried tubes since my old film SLR - I'll have to give that a try sometime. For my extreme low-budget macro flower photography, I've been using a $50 Raynox Macro conversion lens. Snaps right on the front of my zoom lens very quickly so I can switch between far and near on the fly. DOF is really tight, though, so it takes some fiddling to get a good focus - but the price is right.

 

[nartreb]

Sadly, the lens you used is sized to fit compact cameras like your Powershot. Raynox's largest-diameter lens set (72mm) retails for $300, not counting the adapter ring (both of my good lenses take 77mm filters - which I hadn't realized before). At that point I think I'd rather get the $500 Canon 1:1 lens. But at around $150, the Canon 500D close-up lens is tempting. (I know, the Raynox 250D is two lenses, the Canon is just one, so they're similar values, but I like to invest in smaller amounts when I'm not sure how much I'll use a product. I can always buy another Canon close-up lens later, and stack two together.)

 

[nartreb]

Example of shooting hand-held in good light:

I think for that one I used 34mm of extension.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Examples of using Extension Tubes with a Telephoto zoom lens

One advantage in using extension tubes with telephoto lenses is that it becomes very easy to throw the background (even relatively close ones) out of focus to better isolate the subject. Here are some examples of using extension tubes with a 70-210mm Canon zoom lens on a Canon XTi camera. In general I stopped the lens down as far as I could to obtain maximum depth of field while keeping the shutter speed just fast enough to obtain a sharp image based on the breeze/wind.

Milkweed umbels (buds and blossom) at 210mm (35mm equivalent: 336mm), f/29, 3/10 second:

Milkweed seeds blowing in the wind at 115mm (35mm equivalent: 184mm), f/11, 1/60 second:

Additional Milkweed macro photos can be seen in this slide show: The Life and Times of Milkweed.

Pokeweed blossoms becoming unripe green berries at 210mm (35mm equivalent: 336mm), f/8, 1/100 second:

Additional Pokeweed macro photos can be seen in this slide show: The Life and Times of Pokeweed.

Goldenrod buds at 165mm (35mm equivalent: 264mm), f/8, 1/15 second:

Additional Goldenrod macro photos can be seen in this slide show: The Life and Times of Goldenrod.

Detail of a fern fond from a garden/park location (I do not know the name of the fern) at 210mm (35mm equivalent: 336mm), f/29, 1/6 second:

Additional macro photos of this fern can be see in this slide show.

 

[blaze]

There are some great macro shots here.

I have a Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro lens, and have really enjoyed it. But I'm considering selling it in favor of a Canon 55-250 IS and a Raynox 150 DCR closeup lens. Especially after having seen some sample photos like this one.

The Canon 55-250 is a more versatile lens for wildlife and street photography, and it has gotten good reviews (especially considering the price). With the Raynox I feel like I'll be getting a pretty versatile combination.

 

[nartreb]

I discovered that the tubes can be useful for photographing small wildlife (birds and butterflies) with a very long telephoto lens. The subjecst will fly away before you can get close enough to use a macro lens, but sometimes you can't back up to get into focal distance for a telephoto lens either, especially if you need to peer through foliage to get the shot. With a 400mm lens providing most of the magnification, and a macro tube allowing me to stay close, I got some good shots (at some cost in depth of field, which doesn't hurt much when the background is cluttered and distracting) in an aviary recently (photos on my site in a day or so). I'm going to try it at tonight's bouldering competition, another place where I'm often stuck at an awkward distance, though I'm worried I won't have enough light for action shots with the tube in.

Example peering through branches:


Update: Didn't use the rings at the bouldering comp after all. I was closer than I usually get, well within range of my 24-105 zoom.

 

[Elizabeth]

I am tempted to buy this little point-and-shoot lens extender for my Canon Powershot G11:

http://littlebigshot.blogspot.com/

Anyone ever try anything like this?