I'm looking into getting some more magnification when I buy my new tripod. I will be getting a 055XPROB so will be able to get pretty low to the ground.
The lenses I have at the moment are Sigma 10-20 (doubt I'll be using it for macro ), Canon 17-55 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS.
I am concerned with which option gives the highest magnification and retains the best IQ.
Hoya Pro-1 Close-up +3 £45
B+W MRC Close-up +4 £60
Canon 12mm Extension tube x2 £90
Canon 25mm Extension tube £95
I am not interested in buying a dedicated macro lens as this is would be quite a lot of money.
Which option provides the best combination of value for money, construction (build quality), IQ, AF speed, Convenience?
Get the Kenko set. They will have the most versatility, and will take you to at 1:1 (an individual Canon tube will not, you'd have to buy more than one, and I don't think either of the filters will either). The extension tubes will have better IQ, as they don't stick an additional piece of glass in the light path. You'll probably want to avoid AF, as at really high magnifications, MF will be easier and more accurate anyways; but all of your options will technically retain AF. The build quality on the Kenkos is probably slightly less than the Canon tubes, but in real life, there isn't any big difference, especially considering you get three tubes for less than the price of one Canon tube. You'll probably want to avoid AF, as at really high magnifications, MF will be easier and more accurate anyways; but all of your options will technically retain AF.
I've removed the Kenkos because of their incompatibility with my 17-55 IS. What would the magnification of the 500D on the 70-200 2.8 IS be in comparison to 2x 12mm on my 17-55 IS?
I'd favour getting tubes over filters because of their obvious advantage in IQ.
Has anyone got any images taken with the 10-20/17-55/70-200 with canon extension tubes?
Just FWIW,: a friend that I shoot with, produces stunningly good images using the 500D on his Nikon 70-200 f2.8 - I would assume the same results on the Canon.
I have a 77mm 500D and 67mm B+W +3 diopter in my day-bag for closeup shooting, usually with my 70-200/2.8L IS (77mm) or 70-200/4L IS (67mm). They produce fine results, they're really small (with filter caps to protect them) and they don't reduce incoming light (which is good for handheld shooting), but they're not as good for "real macro" as a set of extension tubes. I do most of my macro shooting with a Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro macro lens, or with a bellows setup for magnification greater than 1:1.
I've had a look at some shots taken with it. They are of high quality I must admit.
I found out though that with the 500D I will be able to get around 0.5x magnification with my 70-200 at 200mm - its weakest spot.
With the 24mm of tubes though (2x12mm) I will be able to get 1:1 with my 17-55 at (24*1.6)mm = 38mm. Effectively I should have a pretty sharp 38mm 1:1 macro. Will the light fall off be that large if I shoot F8 and above?
I will be using this solution on a 40D by the way, attached to a Manfrotto 055XPROB, 468MG head and probably 625 RC0 QR system, if not a 323 RC2 system.
Considering I will be using whatever I get as my main macro do you think extension tubes would be better. I aim to shoot macro not too infrequently but enough to make buying a 100mm too much.
If you want to do serious macro, then a set of tubes is a great start. You'll get consistently good results if you use MLU with a remote shutter release cable (or MLU with self-timer for static subjects) on a stable tripod. You'll also find a focus rail is extremely useful - you mount the camera or lens foot on the focus rail, and it lets you slide the camera towards or away from the subject. Once you get to higher magnifications, controlling the distance from the camera to the subject is often more important for getting correct focus than the focus ring on the lens itself. Off-camera flash is very useful for macro, but you certainly don't need it to start. A simple reversing ring with an inexpensive fast-50mm lens can give great high mag results. In general, I think a prime lens gives better results for macro than a zoom, and manual focus is often required to get the best results (i.e. what you want, not what the camera wants). You can get into really excellent and inexpensive "alternative" solutions, like a SMC Takumar 50/4 macro on a set of M42 bellows, with an M42 to EOS adapter to attach the bellows to your camera. Sorry, I digress. A set of extension tubes is a great start.
For MLU does the camera lift up the mirror system before exposure; you then tell it when to start the exposure and then at the end of the exposure the sensor stops recording and then brings the mirror down?
Is that why people get sharper shots with MLU than without?
When using MLU, you push the shutter button (or cable release) twice for one photo. The first push causes the mirror to flip up, then you wait for a few seconds for the rig to stop shaking (which is caused by the mirror flip-up), and then push the release a second time - that's when the rest of the stuff happens; exposure is set (it not on maunal, which is the best one to use); the lens aperture stops down (if it's a Canon EF lens); and then the shutter opens and closes. This way, the only motion is associated with the shutter, which is very light and smooth in motion. If you use the drive self-timer instead, you only push the release once- the mirror flips up immediately, and the shutter fires about 2 seconds later.
Alternatively, with your 40D, you can use LiveView to help get exact focus, by zooming in on the LCD image. The mirror is always up when LiveView is active (i.e. after you push the Set button and while the subject image is shown on the LCD), so there is only the shutter motion when you take the shot.
For more flexibility in macro work I prefer using bellows system over rigid tubes. The added functionality of a good bellow system with tilt and shift capability makes it much more adaptable for macro work.
But in my carry-around bag I keep a 500D due to the minimal amount of space it requires.
), Canon 17-55 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS.