p.1 #3 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
The traditional answer to this question is to use extension tubes on fixed focal length lenses and close-up filters on zooms. The reason is that tubes make a zoom no longer parfocal, i.e. you need to refocus when you zoom. I first read this in a John Shaw book decades ago.
I did in fact use tubes behind zooms a lot with my old film kit, because good multielement close-up filters weren't easily available in Australia in the diameters I needed. I found Shaw was right: it was indeed a pain in the neck to reacquire focus after zooming. (In those days, good manual focus zooms were actually parfocal. It's less necessary now with AF, but your zoom doesn't vary focus much with focal length.) There were two other problems with the tubes: the bellows factor (loss of light) and the detrimental effect on bokeh (pretty bad with my zooms).
Close up filters tend to perform poorly in the edges and corners. However, in the typical macro shot this will just be perceived as smooth bokeh. I've never used the 500D so can't comment specifically about its performance.
The amount of extension you need increases with focal length, so for your zoom the tube will be much bulkier than the 500D. You may also lose weather sealing with the tubes (at the very least you'll need to remove and refit the lens, risking dust on the sensor), whereas the 500D will maintain weather sealing on your zoom. The tubes will affect the handling. I have this zoom and find it very unergonomic with an extender, so would think the same about tubes. If you use a tripod, a tube will put the camera farther back behind the ball head, making the rig less stable.
As I mentioned above, the bellows factor means you'll end up with a slower shutter speed using tubes than the 500D. Since this lens has good IS, it could mean using a tripod where with the 500D you could hand hold.
I don't have experience with either solution with this particular lens, but for all the reasons I mentioned above I would choose the 500D over tubes.
p.1 #4 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
I find it easier just to use MF when increasing the maximum magnification of the 100-400 II. Set MF to minimum, extend lens fully, then position yourself to achieve focus (just like using an MP-E 65)
p.1 #5 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
Yes, when shooting handheld setting to minimum focus distance and rocking back and forward is the way to go. Another reason to do that is to position the lens elements for maximum close focus correction (this is also true for fixed focal length lenses with floating elements). However, if working on a tripod without a focussing rail you'll want to do the final focus adjustment using the lens's focus ring so as not to have to keep moving the tripod.
A 1.4x converter does indeed increase magnification. I've used this on the 300mm f/4 IS to good effect, but could not get anywhere as close as that ant photo - small beetles and reptiles only, and the long working distance became a problem as at minimum focus I needed to stand on tiptoes.
p.1 #6 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
I often use the 500D close-up lens with my 100-400L IS II. It provides magnifications from [1:4.7] at 100mm to [1:1.3] at 400mm, for working distances of about 20" to 10". The magnification ratio of [1:1.3] is about half way between a "life size" [1:1] macro (mag. 1.0) and a "half size" [1:2] macro (mag. 0.5).
I use extension tubes to increase magnification with my bellows system and to reduce MFD for my 500/4L IS and 300/2.8L IS, but I don't like using them for handheld photography, because they reduce the light so much.
Here's two images from the series I posted in the Canon Spring 2016 thread,
p.1 #7 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
I much preferred extension tubes to the 500D on my 100-400. For most tripod shooting, weather-sealing, loss of light, and ergonomics were of no significance when using tubes. I find it much easier putting on and taking off tubes, than doing the same with the 500D.
p.1 #8 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
Excellent feedback guys. My thanks to all who offered their thoughts and experience.
Seems that it isn't really a binary option .... so few things ever are .... and I should probably consider adding both to my stable of goodies
p.1 #9 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
Imagemaster wrote:
I much preferred extension tubes to the 500D on my 100-400. For most tripod shooting, weather-sealing, loss of light, and ergonomics were of no significance when using tubes. I find it much easier putting on and taking off tubes, than doing the same with the 500D.
p.1 #10 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
jcolwell wrote:
....
I use extension tubes to increase magnification with my bellows system and to reduce MFD for my 500/4L IS and 300/2.8L IS, but I don't like using them for handheld photography, because they reduce the light so much.
.........
Extension tubes reduce the light? I was not aware of this, thanks for pointing it out )
p.1 #11 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
Another viable option might be a Raynox DCR-250 lens/diopter. It works brilliantly with 100mm Macro.But the problem ( I think) is that it works on lenses having filter diameter size upto 67 mm.So with a 100-400mm MkII, a step-down adaper (77mm to 67mm) will be needed. There is also a chance of vignetting,but if you are to use this for macro only,that should not pose as a problem.
Just another option suggested to enhance the 'macro-ish' ability of the already superb lens.
p.1 #14 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
shutterbug guy wrote:
I've found the 500D worked brilliantly with the MkI but with the MFD being superior with the MkII, not so much.
I find it works just as well on the Mk II. The Mk II's shorter MFD allows you to get higher magnification, if required.
Jun 29, 2016 at 08:58 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #15 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
I haven't done this with this combo, but I doubt there would be a lot of difference. Although you'd probably get a lot closer at 400mm with the 500D. Well, maybe there would be a big difference
I like tubes on a zoom. I used to use tubes on a 70-210 zoom. It was nice, because with a zoom you can take pictures of bigger or smaller stuff, the prime isn't as adjustable with a single tube. I usually assume that no zooms are parfocal, and refocus anyway.
I think I used 25mm or 36mm on the 70-210, I'd probably get at least 36mm or so if you plan on using at 400mm much.
I prefer a macro lens to swapping tubes and diopters, but there aren't many 400mm macro lenses out there.
I used to use single element close up lenses on a 50mm lens and the 70mm end of a zoom, mostly before I got a macro lens. Happy with them. I think the 500D is two element, which is better.
I wouldn't expect much light loss at 400mm, but you'd get quite a bit at 100mm with a 36mm tube. With the tube, you'd have more magnification, (bigger image of small subject,) at the shorter end of the zoom (if I remember right.) The longer the fl, the more extension you need, for a given small size, and the less it affects the amount of light.
p.1 #16 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
One thing to note is that most zooms loose a bit of focal length as you get closer . some mores than others .
i.e. the 70-300 L and the 70-200 L's (F4 IS and 2.8 IS Mk2) both have the same MFD and same Magnification . which actually means both lenses are the same focal length at MFD (I think its about 170mm )
I use a short (13mm) Tube on my 120-300 OS and can see the difference in magnification at distances that I could use the lens without a tube . the MFD of that lens is about 2.5m . using the Tube I can focus to about 5m . anything thats closer than 5M I will usually always use the tube .
p.1 #18 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
My fail with the 500D was probably due to shooting very active bees, if the subject had been more static like a sleeping butterfly I'm sure the results would have been better.
jcolwell wrote:
I find it works just as well on the Mk II. The Mk II's shorter MFD allows you to get higher magnification, if required.
p.1 #19 · 500D - vs - Extension Tubes for a 100-400mm MkII
The DOF is so shallow that it takes many OOF photos to get one that has the plane of focus in almost the right place. Thank goodness I'm not shooting film, whatever that was.
)