Macro tubes vis Macro lens

James Blonde

James Blonde

Suspended / Banned
Messages
405
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm asking on behalf of my stepdad (I think I've spent enough money on camera stuff this decade... :P although I have to admit a certain curiosity...)

Are (chipped) macro tubes worth the effort? For the sake of £60, they're obviously significantly cheaper than the cheapest Nikon macro (40mm) at £180, and they're probably cheap enough to just give macro photography a shot, and if he doesn't like it, not worry that he's spent a fair amount of money on something he isn't going to use.

In terms of current lenses, he's got the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses, and I understand that zooms might not be the best choice for macro on tubes (but I could give him my 50mm F1.8 prime if that would make a significant difference).

Or would he be as well off to get the 40mm Micro Nikkor.

Or are there other options worth investigating?
 
i had ext tubes before. it's not too bad TBH. but when i got macro lens (Tokina 100mm F2.8) it's just wow. i can use for beautiful portraits too. many people using raynox 150/250 but i never used them so can't comment on that.

so plan is : let him get nikon 40mm and if he doesn't like macro, you can have it :)
 
Get the macro tubes, then if he likes macro phorography and feels it's worth getting a macro lens then stick them on that as well. They're not just for non macro lenses (and that's how I use mine). :)

It's also worth looking at reversing rings, I haven't tried them but have seen some very good results froim people that have.
 
I would get the 40mm, it'll be worth the extra in the long run. I have tried just about every budget way of macro shooting, reverse mounting lenses, macro tubes, magnifiers etc ... And have always ended up just buying a proper macro lens.

What I love about them, and why I feel they're worth the extra, is because there is no fumbling about with spare tubing, you don't have to worry near as much about cutting off light, or contacts remaining steady, and the biggest one; if something interesting catches your eye away from that close up you're shooting, well, you can just turn and shoot it. Can't do that with tubes!

The 40mm will make for a great little portrait lens on top, much better quality and bokeh than his current lenses.
 
Cheapest way of getting into macro is Raynox DCR-250. It's a good quality supplementary close-up lens attachment - about £40 on Amazon.

Very easy to use, will go well on his 55-200. Here's a few examples of what it can do, 28,000 of them http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/
 
i've just got a raynox dcr250 and its brilliant ( have a look in my flickr at some recent attempts )..
 
The difference is £40 vs £350+ so, whilst I agree that you probably can't beat a dedicated macro lens the difference in cost makes "testing the water" easier to stomach if you don't get on with it I guess ?

Below are the 2 most recent shots of taken with a 70-300 VR and a raynox dcr250 handheld. I'm quite happy with them :D


cocooned ( explored - thank you ) by damianmkv, on Flickr


a fly in a buttercup by damianmkv, on Flickr
 
That cocooned photo is very good.

Here's one (a dandelion) with a 60mm macro (you're considering a 40mm so it's quite close in focal length) on a canon crop camera so not radically different from what your stepdad may be considering. There's an ext tube on there as well. ;)

I definitely understand the comments suggesting the macro lens, it is a lot faster and easier than messing about with extension tubes or whatever. I do tend to start off with just the macro lens but when I find something I want to get closer to I reach for the extension tubes as well. Some kind of support (eg tripod) is very useful for close ups though.


IMG_1856 resized by Stuart Delaney, on Flickr
 
Ahh so that's a macro with tubes... hmm....

He was quite taken with the insect pics and, short term at least, I'm thinking maybe to try the Raynox. Or I would if Amazon was selling them - apparently someone has complained as they weren't as described, therefore they've been taken off sale :bang:

Tubes sound like a good idea, but perhaps not with the lenses he has.

Macro is obviously the ideal solution, but I'm not convinced it would get the use. Yes, it might end up with me, but I'd probably have wanted a bigger and more expensive macro! :P
 
Another cheapish way of getting into macro is to buy an old manual focus macro lens. They're cheaper than more modern AF lenses and as macro is mostly a manual focus thing the lack of AF isn't that big a deal IMVHO.
 
you could do cheapo extension tubes and a old manual m42 lens too, or a reversing ring with a old lens

a proper macro lens does give you the full range, a raynox limits you to a fairly close range while its on, fiddling with tubes can give you any range.
or combine all 3 for super macro or complete inabililty to focus on anything
 
Honestly, the 40mm micro is the cheapest macro lens out there [new at least] - it does 1:1 macro, the only people who need more are pro-macro shooters, who may be published for their extreme detail. Even if he gave up on the macro side, he'd still have a nice wee lens that's great for general use,portraits, landscape, anything bar sports or wildlife maybe.


For the price ...


I wouldn't do the hassle of tubes or add ons unless I was really dedicated to patiently getting used to using them. Tubes are not the easiest things to work with. You need to know what you're at to get the best from them. The best way to use them, and I bet anyone who has extensively would concur, is in full manual focus moce, using your body to focus,with delicate in and out motion and perfect stillness when you happen to lock it on. You get a lot more binners than keepers. With a macro lens, even the shortest, you can get away with being a bit more casual.

When recommending, people should take this into account. Tubes are useless in anything but great lighting without off cam flash or at least a flash on cam with extending diffusers.
 
Last edited:
Actually, before I do buy this Raynox, how does it attach to the lens? Does it need an adapter for different size filter threads / lens fronts or anything??
 
It just clips on the front of your lens with a pinch adapter that comes in the box. Goes from 52-67mm I think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top