cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Macro Extension Tube Recommendation

shele
Contributor

I have a EOS RP camera with an RP 24-105 lens and an EF 75-300 lens plus an adapter. I'm in the market for a macro extension tube set and would like recommendations. [commercial link removed per forum guidelines]

Any thoughts? 

11 REPLIES 11

Waddizzle
Legend
Legend

If I owned an RF mount camera, then I would not buy any more EF mount gear.  The 75-300 isn't Canon's best effort.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

jrhoffman75
Legend
Legend

Extension tubes have no optics. Just get a set that have electrical connections. No reason to spend the dollars on the Canon version. 

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, M200, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, Lr Classic

"No reason to spend the dollars on the Canon version."

 

An even better option is a true macro lens. Extension tubes come with their own set of peculiarities to work with. But if I were so inclined to buy a set it would be Canon's own brand.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@jrhoffman75 wrote:

Extension tubes have no optics. Just get a set that have electrical connections. No reason to spend the dollars on the Canon version. 


AFAIK, Canon has not released a set of extensions tubes for the RF mount.  If they have, B&H only has third party tubes, which just might be okay...and then again they might not.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

"I would not buy any more EF mount gear"

 

Only make sense!  Buy or save for a real macro lens designed for your camera. Check out the Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

So today I looked at extension tubes and decided definitely NOT to purchase. But I'm debating between the canon 85 and 35. Your thoughts? 

Both are capable of producing excellent macro shots (if you define "macro" as no more than 0.5X magnification).  Your expected use(s) should probably determine which one to pick. Both have comparable IS and  both are exceptionally sharp.

 

I own the RF 85 f/2 and it's becoming one of my favorite lenses.  like all longer lenses, it has less perspective distortion than a wide(r) angle lens because of the "flattening effect" of the greater working distance. The focal plane is, of course thinner at any given aperture, but for most macro shots these days focus stacking is used instead of small apertures, so that can actually be an advantage for the sharpest images.

 

The longer working distance also makes subject lighting much easier in most situations.  I also own an EF 35mm f/2 macro which I've used on both EOS R and EOS R5 with adapter.  For my applications, which are typically 3-dimensional objects like jewlery, insects and flowers, I use the 85 f/2  90% of the time.  The available working distance makes it much easier to light subjects and the RF 85 f/2 is also a superb portrait lens. The 85 mm's IS on a R5 is amazing and hand held shots at 1/5 sec with a still subject are usually sharp. Alternately, the 35 is also useful as a nice landscape lens.

 

Since both are great at other uses beyond shooting macros, I'd suggest that you consider your other possible applications in your decision process.

 

 

"The focal plane is, of course thinner at any given aperture,..."

 

You mean, at the same distance to subject. DOF is a two part equation.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"But I'm debating between the canon 85 and 35. Your thoughts?"

 

Neither lens is a true macro but either one beats extension tubes, IMHO. Simply because a lens can focus somewhat close to a subject does not make it a macro. A true macro lens is a different lens design.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements