Macro Lens Vs. Extension Tube

[Samurai]

Been meaning to buy a macro lens for sometime now and went to the shop today to try it out.

Took some pics with the macro lens and then the shop-owner showed me an extension tube. The extension tube has all electronics built in....so can still use complete AF features....same as the macro lens.

I was wearing my C1 today....so took some quick shots. the lighting was very poor and the pics have not been processed in Photoshop etc.

Need help in deciding if there is a big difference in the quality/macro shots between the two. The macro lens is about twice the price of the extension tube....but comes with a Wide angle lens as well. The macro lens is for about $400.

Macro lens pics:

-------------------

Extension tube pics:

-----------------------

[RobbieG]

Hard to really tell. Quality of optics/images have too many variables. My first observation is it isn't a fair fight since the macro pics aren't really close enough. One thing is for sure and that is an extension tube saves you a lot of money. A funny thing about macro lenses is more isn't always more. For flowers I always want the 200 but for watches I seem to always want the 105 or even the 60. The bottom line is sharp focus at distances and framing of subjects you tend to like creatively are going to make HUGE differences in choosing the lens because the slightest changes (closer or farther) can make for nearly unreachable results. With the exception of maybe the crown pic, there is nothing here that you would want the 200 for and as you can see with focus, DOF challenge when you snapped these quick ones it makes those tougher to get right.

[smc]

You lose light with an extension tube right? For set up shots with good light it wouldn't be a problem, but if you are doing impromptu macros it may be. Could be wrong though as I'm too lazy to look it up

[Samurai]

I should probably mention that the lens I tried out was some Japanese unbranded lens. Am sure I can get better lenses on ebay for the same range of $400-$500.

[billywhiz]

for a cheap method - buy a clear ( non spotted ) 2nd hand f35mm lens $10 - 20 from the bay - do the reverse lens trick onto main lens to get super macro.

regular garden spider vs wasp - reverse lens on a standard 6mp Sony Cybershot camera

Obviously for professional work you need proper gear

Edited January 31, 2009 by billywhiz

[Samurai]

WOW....that's a cool shot mate

[lanikai]

I cannot tell from the pics with the extention what it is capable of... but in one simple phrase, "you get what you pay for" .. most of the time anyway.. I payed 400 usd for the sigma 105mm , I now have a Nikor 62 mm .. the 105 enables you to take images from farther away, and is used I am told more for protraits.. for the close in tight shots there is no difference in the 60mm and the 105mm ..

I know the lesser cost is attractive ,.. but in the long run, I think the extra 200 usd will be well thought of. And it has wide angle capability ? .. Plus if it is

Auto / Manuel dual capabilities then I believe it is worth 400 usd.

A macro lens IMO is .. "a macro lens" you can get a substitute.. and have substitute macro pics,.. but then that's just my opinion .. I am talking from experience in "other" facets where, I thought paying less was the way to go,.. but in some cases this is not so..