Extension tubes vs. real macro lens

beatle · #1 04/28/2007, 11:09 PM

I have a Canon 20d with which I'd like to start shooting some macro. I know everyone raves about Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro, but it's a little out of my reach right now for something I won't use all the time. I've read and seen that you can get some decent macro shots with the 50mm 1.8 and extension tubes. Adorama has their Pro Optic set for $85 which seems like a good investment, as I hear that you may want them for even more magnification when you finally get a true macro lens. Any comments on this idea?

FWIW, I've shot with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro and PQ was very good IMO.

louist · #2 04/29/2007, 12:36 AM

I've answered this Q before, so this time I will just refer you to an article I wrote for a newsletter.

Macro Tutorial - selection of macro acessories.

beatle · #3 04/29/2007, 10:10 AM

So, more or less, they're a good idea to get started. Adorama's tubes are cheaper than Kenko's and can also be used with EF-S lenses. Has anyone used them?

beerguy · #4 04/29/2007, 11:02 AM

Tubes are just spacers. As long as they provide electrical conductivity between the body and the lens it doesn't matter who makes it. Kenko "air" isn't any faster than Canon "air"