Macro Q: extension tubes, closed up filters, reverse mount and macro lens

[ManWearPants]

Anyone has done any comparisons between the 4 methods of macro and the resultant IQ.

Let's me more specific here. Assuming I want to attain 50mm macro of 1:2 magnification. I can use

1) 25mm extension tube, or
2) closed up filter (dunno magnification), or
3) reverse mount (dunno magnification), or
4) a 50mm macro lens with 1:2

Which method gives you further distance away from subject while giving you good IQ.

 

[cichlid]

Options 1 to 3 will reduce your MFD.

Only teleconverters let you work at the same original MFD yet have bigger magnification. The longer the focal length of your lens, the longer the MFD.

 

[LukaviZ]

if i recall correctly when i was still playing with macro lenses alot, extension tubes contain no glass element, so IQ is as good as what the lens can offer.

reverse mount is very tricky and cumbersome for practical outdoor use. due to increased glass elements as a result, IQ dips (how much i cant say for sure.. too many factors.. )

close up filter reduces IQ too, again, i cant say for sure how much it will dip. )

a dedicated macro lens is your best bet, though most macro lenses offer 1:1 magnification at mfd. =)

if you want a long working distance while attaining macro results, i think macro lenses give the best result, especially those in the 180mm range.

 

[ManWearPants]

I am thinking since I am not going to be printing out any macro shots, I probably do not need 1:1. Rather I can do a 1:2 or 1:3, take at full resolution, then cropped 100%.

I tested with an EF 70-200 f4 IS with Kenko extension tubes (12+20+36), it is very functional both as a 70mm 1:1 or a 135mm 1:2 and somemore with 4 stop IS. :vhappy: But the downside is it is damn bloody long after stacking the extension tubes.

I read somewhere that some lenses can do a 1:1 simply by reverse adapter. There is no glass element so no degration of IQ. This seems like a very portable setup as all you need is just bring along a reverse adapter.

Similarly for filters, it is very portable and can use across different lenses by using step down adapters. Of course as mentioned, there is degration of IQ.

I do not have any hands on experience with a true macro lens. Are they really much sharper than normal lenses?

 

[ovaltinemilo]

I tested with an EF 70-200 f4 IS with Kenko extension tubes (12+20+36), it is very functional both as a 70mm 1:1 or a 135mm 1:2 and somemore with 4 stop IS. :vhappy: But the downside is it is damn bloody long after stacking the extension tubes.

extension tube makes dof very thin...razor thin...are you really comfortable with that? a dedicated macro lens will definitely give better IQ anytime.

 

[ManWearPants]

extension tube makes dof very thin...razor thin...are you really comfortable with that? a dedicated macro lens will definitely give better IQ anytime.

Yes, I noticed that as this lens is f4. I will post some picture samples if possible tonight.

 

[ismokeweed79]

Reverse mounts cannot change the aperture..

 

[engrmariano]

Reverse mounts cannot change the aperture..

stop down first before you unmount the lens...

 

[engrmariano]

Anyone has done any comparisons between the 4 methods of macro and the resultant IQ.

Let's me more specific here. Assuming I want to attain 50mm macro of 1:2 magnification. I can use

1) 25mm extension tube, or
2) closed up filter (dunno magnification), or
3) reverse mount (dunno magnification), or
4) a 50mm macro lens with 1:2

Which method gives you further distance away from subject while giving you good IQ.

the best way for me is Auto ET. no degradation of IQ plus you can use it on other lenses...

 

[ManWearPants]

Thanks all for your insights. I should be able to post some test results but really no time. So I'll leave it at that till someone else raise the Q. thread closed.