Steve Babbs
Well-known member
Well worth a look. Grumps your lens is mentioned in this thread.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
My new macro lens .... the Canon 100-400 L IS! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cactusdave
- Start date
Well worth a look. Grumps your lens is mentioned in this thread.
Thanks Steve. Have managed some reasonable butterfly d'fly shots with my lens.
Has anyone used extension tubes with my model of lens?
Would appreciate any advice please.
Hugh
John In Ireland
Well-known member
This is groundbreaking news to me!! I have a 100-400 for birding and have been looking at various expensive macro lenses for insects and flowers, but these image samples are more than I would be happy with! I know a lot has to do with the person behind the lens but to see what can be achieved is very encouraging! Thanks for sharing Cactusdave. Although I cant see how you keep such sharp focus with handheld! Can anyone post links on good tubes for this purpose?
John In Ireland
Well-known member
Excuse my ignorance. Would a 36mm tube do the same job as a 12mm plus a 25mm? I see on this thread that both combinations are being used? Would the results be the same because I can't see the point in buying two tubes when one 36mm will do.
Paul Pearson
Well-known member
Hi
I've recently bought a set of Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG - Canon EOS EF/EFS for £85.48 (incl postage) from Hong Kong via Cytoss (no problems there - good service).
I used the smaller two rings together on Saturday hand held with my 100-400 and was encouraged by the results. Will try and post an example later.
Need to get out there and practice - the images posted earlier are inspirational.
Paul
john-henry
Well-known member
I use a Kenko 36mm tube with my 100-400 and it's just fine, see post 14 for a rough guide of focusing distances.
One little quirk I have found is that below (about) 200mm zoom the camera (7D) over-exposes 1 full stop, above c. 200mm gives the correct exposure, it's no great problem if you remember to dial-in -1 EV to counteract it or better still shoot in manual exposure mode. I've no idea what causes this but try it out for yourself to see if the same happens with your setup.
Erich Gray
New member
Found this forum by through this thread from a google search. Love the discussion. I have a 100-400mm and love it. I have been looking into a macro extension. You people answered my questions before I even asked. Thanks. Lovely photographs.
Erich
Erich
John In Ireland
Well-known member
Ah! .... Good! Welcome to BirdForum Erich! You will love it here!
Tiraya
San Diego CA
As I use 100-400 for birding I commonly find myself trying to photograph flowers and such with this lens, and it does a good job. My main issue is how far back you need to step to obtain focus sometimes. Thus for smaller insects and flowers I still carry around a macro for this purpose.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
That is the point of extension tubes - they decrease the minimum focal length of the lens so you would not have to step back as far!
Tiraya
San Diego CA
I must admit I have never explored the potential of extension tubes before. Hmm. I'll have to look into that.
peter kitchener
Well-known member
For several years I used a dedicated Minolta 200 macro lens, tripod mounted for photographing insects. The results were excellent but the syetem was clumsy and heavy (1862 grams without the tripod).
Last year I decided to try a 13mm extension tube on my existing Sony 70-300mm G lens. This lens has a MFD of 1.2 metres, but with the 13mm extension tube the MFD is reduced to about 30cm at 70mm and 80cm at 300mm. To my surprise the results were on a par with the minolta macro lens. The system is much lighter (1600 grams) and far more flexible than the Minolta macro; autofocus and IS continue to work well. I can obtain good quality images hand-held and carry the Sony camera/extension tube/lens in a shoulder bag for hours (unlike my previous set-up), I have been so pleased with the results that I sold the Minolta macro lens and have not regretted that decision.
Last year I decided to try a 13mm extension tube on my existing Sony 70-300mm G lens. This lens has a MFD of 1.2 metres, but with the 13mm extension tube the MFD is reduced to about 30cm at 70mm and 80cm at 300mm. To my surprise the results were on a par with the minolta macro lens. The system is much lighter (1600 grams) and far more flexible than the Minolta macro; autofocus and IS continue to work well. I can obtain good quality images hand-held and carry the Sony camera/extension tube/lens in a shoulder bag for hours (unlike my previous set-up), I have been so pleased with the results that I sold the Minolta macro lens and have not regretted that decision.
kitefarrago
Well-known member
I have the same Sony lens, Peter, and it's my walk-about lens. I've done some macro with it, but as you say, the minimal focussing distance can make this slightly frustrating at times. Could you say more about the extension tube you're using?
Thanks,
Andrea
Thanks,
Andrea
peter kitchener
Well-known member
Hi Andrea
It's a 13mm metal mount Sony A fit AF extension tube similar (if not identical) to the 13mm component of the Neewer macro extension set. I bought the 13mm tube separately but usually you have to buy a set.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Exte...2-fkmr0&keywords=13mm+extension+tube+sony+fit
The extension tube has a greater effect at shorter focal lengths (decreasing both the minimum and maximum focal distance to a greater extent at 70mm than at 300 mm.) At 300mm the MFD is only decreased from 1.2 metres to 0.8 metres by addition of the 13mm extension tube. However, at 300mm the maximum focal distance is about 10 metres; you can't focus at infinity. A 21mm extension tube will have a greater effect (decreasing the minimum and maximum focal distance even more) - it depends what you want to photograph. I find that the 13mm extension tube allows me to photograph butterflies and dragonflies (at about 200-300mm) but I can get in closer to hoverflies and bumblebees (at about 100-135 mm).
Hope that helps.
Peter
It's a 13mm metal mount Sony A fit AF extension tube similar (if not identical) to the 13mm component of the Neewer macro extension set. I bought the 13mm tube separately but usually you have to buy a set.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Exte...2-fkmr0&keywords=13mm+extension+tube+sony+fit
The extension tube has a greater effect at shorter focal lengths (decreasing both the minimum and maximum focal distance to a greater extent at 70mm than at 300 mm.) At 300mm the MFD is only decreased from 1.2 metres to 0.8 metres by addition of the 13mm extension tube. However, at 300mm the maximum focal distance is about 10 metres; you can't focus at infinity. A 21mm extension tube will have a greater effect (decreasing the minimum and maximum focal distance even more) - it depends what you want to photograph. I find that the 13mm extension tube allows me to photograph butterflies and dragonflies (at about 200-300mm) but I can get in closer to hoverflies and bumblebees (at about 100-135 mm).
Hope that helps.
Peter
kitefarrago
Well-known member
Thanks for adding the detail, Peter. As spring is approaching I think I'd like to experiment with this.
Andrea
Andrea
