• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

using extension rings with telephoto lense-questions (1 Viewer)

David Smith

David Smith

Warrington Lancs
Having got myself a nice (180mm) macro lense I am enjoying that.
However!!
I wonder if extension rings on my 100-400 would give a further dimension i.e. butterflies'dragonflies etc won't stay still however many times I ask them;)

So a few questions please:-
a) If I add extension ring/rings will it enable me to shoot butterlies from
further away e.g. 2-3 metres?
b) Will depth of field make it just as difficult as with standard macro?
c) Do Kenko rings enable full auto functions?
d) Do you lose mutch quality ?
etc. etc.

I'm not thinking of using them instead of-just wonder if they are a useful add-on?
 
Hi david, I gather you mean extension tubes - if not this post is completely useless!:-O
a) it wont make the focal length longer if thats what you mean - it lowers the minimum focussing distance, so you can get closer with your 400mm than without tubes - which would effectively mean you get closer
b) Im not experienced with macro lenses, but I doubt it would be as fiddly.
c) pretty sure they do, yes.
d) You lose no quality, as there are no extra optical elements - just air! This is why alot of people buy third party ones. They simple lower the minimum focussing distance.
HOWEVER - they do mean you wont be able to focus to infinity.
This last point may make you question their useful-ness, as if you have a few tubes on (lowering the distance more) to shoot dragonflies, then a bird lands 20m away, you may not be able to focus on the bird, and would have to take off the tubes.

Hope that helps.
 
yes-I did mean extension tubes.
Can you (anyone) advise-with 100-400mm how far away could I be to take decent shots of butterflies?
 
I use Kenko auto-extension tubes pretty often with both the Canon 100-400mm and 400mm f5,6 for butterflies and dragonflies - check my gallery for the sort of results you get without much effort.

For close up photos of living butterflies and dragonflies in the wild I prefer to use the 100-400mm with a 20mm extension tube usually at around 300-350mm. In practice the extension tube helps the lens magnify the image on the sensor by reducing the minimum focus from around 1m with this tube at 350mm up to around 6m working distance. Obviously you can use whichever tube width you want for further distance control and they take just seconds to add/remove.

You retain autofocus and autoexposure throughout though by adding the tube between the lens and camera body less light reaches the sensor so you lose an f-stop. This isn't a problem in bright or sunny conditions. Macro lenses are generally much faster lenses some with apertures to f2,8 but of course narrower depth of field so with the 100-400mm at around a maximum of f5,6 or more you have a little more depth of field to play with. Even a macro lens can be used at f8 or higher for more depth of field. Generally I like around f8-f10 if light permits and it generally does.
 
David Smith said:
yes-I did mean extension tubes.
Can you (anyone) advise-with 100-400mm how far away could I be to take decent shots of butterflies?
Click to expand...
Just to add to what has already been said David, Extension tubes are used to reduce the min focus distance of a lens so if you need to be more than a couple of metres away then it is pointless using a tube with the 100-400 as the min focus distance is less than this.
I use a 70-200 f4 with 1.4tc and 20mm tube for B'flys and dragons and this gives a working distance of between 0.7 and 2.5 mtrs which I find ideal (0.7 mtrs at 280mm just about fills the frame with butterflies).
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
Just to add to what has already been said David, Extension tubes are used to reduce the min focus distance of a lens so if you need to be more than a couple of metres away then it is pointless using a tube with the 100-400 as the min focus distance is less than this.
.............
Click to expand...

On the other hand using an extension tube in such circumstances magnifies the size of the image on the sensor for any given distance within the working range - which is the true reason for using them in the first place. Reduction in minimum focus is really just an added benefit particularly when used with long telephoto lenses.
 
IanF said:
On the other hand using an extension tube in such circumstances magnifies the size of the image on the sensor for any given distance within the working range - which is the true reason for using them in the first place. Reduction in minimum focus is really just an added benefit particularly when used with long telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
What is the magnification with, say the 100-400 at the long end Ian? from what I have read it is very small, did see a table once and it was something like 1.05 x.
Every time I used a tube on the 400 f5.6 a bird came along just outside of the Max focus distance :C
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
What is the magnification with, say the 100-400 at the long end Ian? from what I have read it is very small, did see a table once and it was something like 1.05 x. I still reckon most people use a tube to decrease the MFD.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I've never measured the magnification. I do wonder if the 1.05x refers to magnification at the same distance or when closer to the subject due to shorter minimum focus?

People may use extension tubes more so nowadays to reduce minimum focus on long prime lenses but their original purpose in life was for macro/close up photography to increase the size of the image on the film frame - generally using much shorter lenses. I used to use them and bellows for that matter many years ago for macro work with 28mm and 50mm prime lenses. The reduced focus was a bind as the equipment blocked the light from the subject.
 
IanF said:
- check my gallery for the sort of results you get without much effort.
.
Click to expand...

Checked it-very nice.
When trying to photograph dragonflies with the macro I find that most of them rest on the plants which are a couple of metres from the ege of the pond-the extension tube(s) would seem to be an answer (I have recently sold my scuba gear with underwater camera:-O )

Do you use ALL the rings i.e. is it possible (worth) buying just the 20mm?
 
They usually come in sets of three for around £60-70 if you shop around. Well worth a web search or a check on Ebay. Kenko and Jessops produce auto tubes of high quality. You can use either a single tube or two or three in different combinations. The wider the tube though the less light reaches the sensor meaning a longer shutter speed and closer to subject distance. For macro work with inanimate subjects it's common practice to use more than one tube but not really for living active subjects.

I find the 20mm most useful for what I want to do for the amount of magnification and distance from subject - but I do occasionally use the others as well.

I'm only aware of Canon selling tubes as singles in either 12mm or 25mm but each on their own cost more than a full set of three tubes and offer no advantage that I can see. As they have no glass elements it's just the build quality to consider and the independent ones are very good.

If considering purchase just be aware that some tubes are manual only - which work but require manual focus and some come in multiple parts that fit together to comprise one tube. The Kenko and Jessops tubes are one piece construction and of high quality - though there may be other brands equally as good.
 
Hi Ian, here is a link to a Table for extension tubes that you maybe interested in. http://bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm
As an example it shows a 25mm tube on the 400mm f5.6 as having a focus distance of 2.4 to 6.6 mtrs with a magnification of 0.21 at 2.4 mtrs and 0.07 at 6.6 mtrs (at least that is how I am interpreting it). Of course a 25mm tube on a lesser focal length lens will give a lot more magnification.

p.s. I don't think Jessops are doing their own make tubes anymore - they were selling off a set of three Canon AF tubes for £25 a couple of months ago (I paid £70 a few years ago).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that Roy :t:

A shame they didn't cover the 100-400mm as well which would have been more useful but at least gives an idea of the figures involved.

As to actual magnification figures I'm not sure of their usefulness nowadays other than as a curiosity with the advent of auto everything. You just need to add tube and look through the viewfinder.

A shame about their tubes if they have stopped making them.
 
ultimateaddons said:
Let me know how you get on David as i was thinking of doing the same with my 400 L lens.
Click to expand...

I've more or less decided to go for them-I was out yesterday and got some nice shots of 'ONE' butterfly but there were plenty of others that seemed very sensitive to any movement and were away before I got close enough:-C
I'm sure the extension tubes would do the trick.
 
David Smith said:
Having got myself a nice (180mm) macro lense I am enjoying that.
However!!
I wonder if extension rings on my 100-400 would give a further dimension i.e. butterflies'dragonflies etc won't stay still however many times I ask them;)

So a few questions please:-
a) If I add extension ring/rings will it enable me to shoot butterlies from
further away e.g. 2-3 metres?
b) Will depth of field make it just as difficult as with standard macro?
c) Do Kenko rings enable full auto functions?
d) Do you lose mutch quality ?
etc. etc.

I'm not thinking of using them instead of-just wonder if they are a useful add-on?
Click to expand...

Hi David, I purchased a set of Jessop's tubes full price last year after seeing some sample shots that IanF kindly sent me last year. I now use the tubes with a Canon 300f4 I have not done any tests using the 100-400. I am most impressed with the 300f4 results. All of my shots have been hand held so far my aim is to use the tri-pod next time....been too windy around here.

Using a combination of 52mm with the 300f4 minimum focus is approx 30 inches. This attached image is full frame, hand held. Wonderful tool for butterfly subjects...not on windy days....

Regards

Roy.
 

Attachments

  • Raw00038Common Blue - full frame @ 300f4 52 mm tube - May 31.jpg
    Raw00038Common Blue - full frame @ 300f4 52 mm tube - May 31.jpg
    239.7 KB · Views: 123
Old thread, but would these rings be the same sort of thing as mentioned above?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AF-Confirm-Macro-Extension-Tube-for-CANON-EOS-EF_W0QQitemZ180318951282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Photography_CameraLenses_Lens_caps_hoods_adaptors_ET?hash=item180318951282&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318

Can't find any other extension tubes for under £120?
 
Personally I'm not so struck on that multi-part type - too many bits strung together.

Try searching for 'Kenko extension tubes' or 'Jessops extension tubes' whether on Ebay or on Google usually around £80-£100 new. They've jumped quite a bit since I got mine.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

S
Barrel extensions for the Nikon Monarch 7 10x30
Replies
9
Views
1K
Mike Crawley
Mike Crawley
Raegan
Birding in Yucatan Tips
Replies
12
Views
2K
w.travis
W
H
Review of birding apps I use on Android
Replies
7
Views
2K
THE_FERN
T
G
Nikon (Premier?) 8x42 replaced
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
brocknroller
brocknroller
Julie50
My new lifer list - advice please and musings!
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Mysticete
Mysticete

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top