I'm also curious about what you'd like to photograph with the 200 that requires tubes. I can think of hummingbird photos as a possibility.
I think Kenko tubes are the best option. I've read that the cheap tubes don't work well and the Canon tubes are very expensive. I picked up a set that were hardly used for a good price on ebay. I've used them on my primes as well as my 70-200. They work well with all. This is not taken with the lens in question, but here's an example of Kenko tubes used with a 70-200 f2.8:
Wouldn't it simply be to decrease the minimum focusing distance as would the use of extension tubes with any lens? The old 200/1.8 does not focus as close as some of the newer lenses.
I could never get a good capture with tubes. I relie on af and on the poopy LCD of the 40d (what I used then) it looked good. Go to the computer and it was garbage.
John--G wrote:
Wouldn't it simply be to decrease the minimum focusing distance as would the use of extension tubes with any lens? The old 200/1.8 does not focus as close as some of the newer lenses.
Correct, but the things with tubes is that they are more effective on shorter focal length lenses and more effective still on lenses which are reasonably close focusing to begin with. A 200mm lens with low magnification is a very bad candidate for use with extension tubes.
If you can afford the cash for a 200/1.8, odds are you have a lot of nice shorter focal length lenses which will work much better with extension tubes.
John--G wrote:
Wouldn't it simply be to decrease the minimum focusing distance as would the use of extension tubes with any lens? The old 200/1.8 does not focus as close as some of the newer lenses.
yes
but I guess its a question of what else the OP has in the bag as well that may do the job easier and possibly better
The 200/1.8 has an MFD of 2.5m and a mag of 0.09 . wide open at the MFD you have a total DOF of 1cm (apprx) .
putting tubes on to reduce the mfd thus increase the magnification will reduce the DOF to almost nothing. so you need to stop down, which means you have a big heavy lens that your stopping down past a point where a much smaller lens can do the job as well.
As for the tubes. the minimum you want would be the kenko ones. I dont know what body the OP has but anything with a bit of weight (dont see many big whites on rebels) will put a fair amount of stress on cheap tubes. start stacking the tubes and your likely to have a tilt lens.
Dedicated macro lenses are designed to give you the best bang for the buck for macro shots.
IF you can learn to learn to use your equipment slowly and methodically and think through what you want from your full framed image you can get some great results.
There is nothing wrong with trying to get more out of what you have by using tubes. They are simple extenders with no optics involved. The machined surface for fitting what you have is critical.
Real macro shots require using something like the Canon MP 65 which is really a microscope.
Have I added to this discussion? Maybe not but, macro photography has more facets to it then many people realize.
just for interest here's a reply to a question I asked a while back re tubes
"Is there a way to work out how much the mfd is reduced for each length of tube? And also how much of a magnification increase that results in?"
Don Clary replied
I saved this (I think it might have been by wickerprints):
You will need the thin lens formula, which is
1/o + 1/i = 1/f
where o and i are object and image distance, respectively, and f is the focal length. As an example, let's look at the 50 f/1.8. The closest focusing distance of this lens is 0.45 m = 450mm. We now get the image distance from
1/450mm + 1/i = 1/50mm,
i = 56.25mm. The magnification factor is i / o = 56.25mm / 450mm = 0.125. Now add the extension tube. i' = i + 25mm = 81.25mm. We find o' from
1/o' + 1/81.25mm = 1/50mm,
o' = 130mm, the new closest focusing distance. And the new magnification factor is i'/o' = 81.25mm / 130mm = 0.625.
The slight differences from the magnification factors given in Canon's Lens Works are due to these lenses being not exactly "thin" lenses. ...Show more →
Now being a thickie steam comes out of my ears whenever I see Maths like that, but someone else may find it useful
Perhaps someone could write an App for the ipad or something
I have shot with tubes on my 200 1.8 and the canon 25 tube, Don't really know why just because I had it I suppose . I since sold it but here are some pictures. Like was mentioned the DOF is extremely thin so I did stop some of these down. Ron
deepbluejh wrote:
Correct, but the things with tubes is that they are more effective on shorter focal length lenses and more effective still on lenses which are reasonably close focusing to begin with. A 200mm lens with low magnification is a very bad candidate for use with extension tubes.
If you can afford the cash for a 200/1.8, odds are you have a lot of nice shorter focal length lenses which will work much better with extension tubes.
Back in the days when I had access to a 200 1.8 I frequently used it with the Canon 12mm extension tube for candid portraits, mostly at sports events, such as in pit lanes at racing events, because it allowed working closer in for tighter head & shoulder shots while not being physically as close as with a shorter lens. The 12mm tube also allowed pretty reasonable range of focus, IIRC, so it wasn't like I was stuck shooting only in a very shallow zone, which would have been the case with a longer tube. I think an even shallower tube would have been more idea because it would have provided enough reduction in close focus while still maintaining a pretty deep focus range. I still use the 12mm tube with the 85L, also for closer working distance for tight head shots.
mspringfield wrote:
Darn you Ron and Gregory... Now you make me want to go buy Tubes for my 200 1.8...
Worse still: some shots make me want to buy a 200/1.8 for my tubes.
) will put a fair amount of stress on cheap tubes. start stacking the tubes and your likely to have a tilt lens.
, but someone else may find it useful 