Paging the Macroisti - tubes or reversing ring?

Right, which is better, macro extension tubes or a reversing ring.

I know that the real answer is a proper macro lens but there's not a
cat in hells chance of that at the moment so it's either tubes or a
reversing ring.

Anyone got any recommendation of one over the other?

Immediate advantage of a ring I can see is its small size, immediate
advantage of tubes is the different lengths allowing different, well,
focal lengths I guess.

--
Donnie
"**** the world, it's time to fight back"

Lambretta Series 2 186cc "The Shitter"
Lambretta LD 175cc "The Chopper"
Honda CB500R "Look out, Donnie's about!"

 

Right, which is better, macro extension tubes or a reversing ring.

I prefer macro extension tubes, but as they were both under £10, I've got
them both.

Also, a reversing ring exposes the wrong side of the lens, which I don't
like to do.

I've eventually moved to a 50mm macro lens, which is far easier to use and
has better DOF. Would like a longer focal length, but they get very
expensive, very quickly.

 

Extension tubes.

Extension tubes.

Do you really want to expose the wrong side of your lenses or damage the filter
threads?

You have EF-S lenses right? Older extension tubes wont work. You need to make
sure that they will take EF-S lenses. Kenko are a well respected manufacturer.
Expect to pay about £100 new, £50-80 second hand.

Shame you don't know of anyone who could loan you a set with a f/1.4 50mm lens.

 

I've have one of these:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/200428738551

and it works perfectly well for me in full manual mode.

 

I suppose I should've been clearer. Older auto tubes wont accept the EF-S
fitment.

 

Right, which is better, macro extension tubes or a reversing ring.

Indeed, EF extension tubes won't accept EF-S lenses. You were clear enough,
it's me, I can't read!

 

I just got a cheap adapter ringm, and buy old legacy lenses.

On my E510 I use a 50mm Pentacon lens and tubes on M42 thread mount.

 

Absolutely. You can get some really good bargain lenses if you're
prepared to go 'legacy', and prepared to work manually. Even then it's
not all doom and gloom, you can now get adapter rings that activate the
AF confirm light on many cameras, and works quite well with a manual
lens (I have one here, and it's not bad).

Not long ago I found an old Soligor 300mm lens (with the 'preset'
aperture feature) for about £25, which gives me 600mm (equiv.) on my
E510. It's not at all bad, and nice to have for those occasional nature
shots.

For the amount I use the 'extreme' lenses, it just ain't worth spending
the silly money they are now.

 

*ding*

 

Something I hadn't even thought of!! Christ! Common sense - 1 Donnie - 0

--
Donnie
"**** the world, it's time to fight back"

Lambretta Series 2 186cc "The Shitter"
Lambretta LD 175cc "The Chopper"
Honda CB500R "Look out, Donnie's about!"

 

petrolcan wrote:

Ah **** that much??

ummmmmmmmmmmmm aaaaaaa go on?

--
Donnie
"**** the world, it's time to fight back"

Lambretta Series 2 186cc "The Shitter"
Lambretta LD 175cc "The Chopper"
Honda CB500R "Look out, Donnie's about!"

 

Not always, I've picked up a few sets for less.

The tubes and/or the lens?

 

"Donnie" wrote in message

I use a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro on my Canon
Main issue I have is when getting real close to an insect the DOF is a very
fine slice of the subject
see here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/canon-eos/4983183609/
I'm yet to try a Macro flash ring which would enable me to push the f stop
up to around 14 and hopefully
get a bit more in sharp focus.
Also, taking the shot mainly involves focusing at maximum magnification and
rocking the camera back and forward until the eyes
or whatever you want in focus is 'just so' then snap the shot
Of course, you can take a series of shots and focus stack, but thats even
more hassle.
hope to have helped

 

fugnose, know very little about macro but am interested enough to try
it out, you know I have the 18-50 and 55-250 so I want whatevers going
to go ok with that, I suspect the 55-250 wouldnt be much good with
tubes, though think the 18-50 would, but of course the lowest fstops
4.0 ish so I guess that'll limit it compared to your 50mm at 1.4?

--
Donnie
"**** the world, it's time to fight back"

Lambretta Series 2 186cc "The Shitter"
Lambretta LD 175cc "The Chopper"
Honda CB500R "Look out, Donnie's about!"

 

tubes, though think the 18-50 would, but of course the lowest fstops

I wouldn't be worrying too much about large apertures. You get so little
depth of field, you'll be wanting at least f11 or smaller.

 

All the tubes do is decrease the minimum focusing distance so there would be no
reason not to use the 55-250.

Ideally you want to be shooting at f8-11 or even smaller, it all depends onhow
much light you have on the subject.

I'll throw them in the post today.

 

Wot 'e said.

 

<stuff about macro>

Oh yeah, your presence might be required on ukrmc.

 

petrolcan wrote:

Fair Play!

--
Donnie
"**** the world, it's time to fight back"

Lambretta Series 2 186cc "The Shitter"
Lambretta LD 175cc "The Chopper"
Honda CB500R "Look out, Donnie's about!"

 

Oh? Pop over there I shall

--
Donnie
"**** the world, it's time to fight back"

Lambretta Series 2 186cc "The Shitter"
Lambretta LD 175cc "The Chopper"
Honda CB500R "Look out, Donnie's about!"