Has anyone used the 100-500 with tubes for the semi-macro ranges 1:4 to 1:2? I'm assuming it would not be good at the wider end due to the relative rear end distance, but maybe by 200mm or is it better at 300mm? Realistically I'm hoping it's good enough at actual f/10 (not effective aperture). Thanks.
That is certainly an interesting question... and one I can't test as I don't have a set of RF extension tubes! That is a situation that I really should address.
I just did a very quick, very dirty test using my set of Vello tubes (12mm and 20mm). I just shot a ruler using them individually and stacked.
With the tubes stacked the vertical field is ~2.25-3", depending on the lens FL, and working distance is less than 1'. The vertical field is ~4" with either tube alone, regardless of lens zoom setting. I could spend a bit more time and get more precise results, but these should give you a reasonable idea of field and working distance. I didn't notice any remarkable differences in image quality as I varied working distance (which of course meant working the Zoom and Focus rings to get things in focus).
Do you realize that the focus and zoom functions don't work the same with tubes as without? Both rings basically serve for focusing, with relatively little change in magnification. Any extension tube will a) greatly reduce the maximum working distance, and b) the working distance range is pretty small as you zoom from 100-500. These are typical for any zoom lens used with tubes. This is why I use extenders rather than tubes if I want more magnification than the lens does natively.
Cant go to sleep without trying this one! I have a stack of Wiltroxes, 72mm in total and did a VQVD, as Abbott above. Wild lens combo! At 500mm and roughly the same working distance between the lens and the ruler I got about 47mm wide. At 100mm and too close to be of much use about 35mm wide. Now, good night!
I use tubes on the 100-500 for wildflowers in the spring and summer. I have Meike ones and everything works very well. I'm usually in the 300-400mm range it seems. I wish Canon would make more ruggedly built RF tubes. The Meike ones work fine, but I wouldn't carry the lens dangling from the camera on a long hike with the tubes attached.
Thanks, all. I was trying to reply earlier but the forum was altogether wacky.
I have 10mm+16mm Meineke tubes and also a 35mm Fotodioxane Pro tube. The latter is really heavy, like a solid hunk o' metal. The smaller tubes are not very sturdy looking and maybe not grounded.
Abbott Schindl wrote:
I just did a very quick, very dirty test using my set of Vello tubes (12mm and 20mm). I just shot a ruler using them individually and stacked.
With the tubes stacked the vertical field is ~2.25-3", depending on the lens FL, and working distance is less than 1'. The vertical field is ~4" with either tube alone, regardless of lens zoom setting. I could spend a bit more time and get more precise results, but these should give you a reasonable idea of field and working distance. I didn't notice any remarkable differences in image quality as I varied working distance (which of course meant working the Zoom and Focus rings to get things in focus).
Do you realize that the focus and zoom functions don't work the same with tubes as without? Both rings basically serve for focusing, with relatively little change in magnification. Any extension tube will a) greatly reduce the maximum working distance, and b) the working distance range is pretty small as you zoom from 100-500. These are typical for any zoom lens used with tubes. This is why I use extenders rather than tubes if I want more magnification than the lens does natively.
What are you trying to accomplish with the tubes?...Show more →
Zooms are surely not ideal with tubes, but I have experience with that since the late 70s. IIRC the magnification is mainly a function of the extension tube, but the IQ may vary significantly with the focal length of the zoom. Some are frankly pretty bad. In 1982 I got the 55/2.8 AI-S micro-Nikkor and despite the short working distance it was awesome.
The only macro I currently own is a ~18 YO 150/2.8 Sigma for EF. IQ is really good and AF is a bit chattery, but it seems to adapt and work on the R5 II. I figure if the 100-500 with tubes is at least good enough at f/10-11 then I can use it instead when macros are low priority on some travel for example.
Have you considered usinig an auxiliary close-up lens? I use Canon 500D close-up lenses with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and 100-400L IS II; one is always in the bag. I also have extension tubes, but the loss of light, and fiddly-setup for tubes (compared to screwing on a filter), means that I always prefer using a close-up lens, if it gets high enough magnification. It easily gets magnifications to and past x0.5 [1:2] for my lenses, and it almost-certainly will for yours, too.
The Canon 500D and 250D (for shorter lenses), have two-element optics, that provide well-corrected and clean images. There are also many one-element close-up aux lenses (including a "Canon 500"), but they typically have lots of CA towards the edges (even the expensive ones).
Unfortunately the 500D is long gone and we never got one back in the day.
I got myself into a difficult situation with the A1 II varpoware and 200-600, causing a cascade of stupidity in February (too much stuff). Now I discovered that my Meineke tubes are actually not for RF.
EB-1 wrote:
I've used the R5+RF 1.4x sometimes at a 2.5-10m distance, but was not so happy with the IQ.
EBH
You may need to look into getting a macro lens then. Extension tubes work better at shorter focal lengths (e.g., less than 100mm) and lose their effectiveness as the focal length increases. For example, 31 mm of tubes will add 0.31X times magnification at 100mm, but only 0.06X more magnifcation at 500mm, where the magnification is greatest natively on the 100-500.
EB-1 wrote:
Has anyone used the 100-500 with tubes for the semi-macro ranges 1:4 to 1:2? I'm assuming it would not be good at the wider end due to the relative rear end distance, but maybe by 200mm or is it better at 300mm? Realistically I'm hoping it's good enough at actual f/10 (not effective aperture). Thanks.
The RF100-500L does 0.34x or roughly 1:3 natively at its long end already, so 1:4 to 1:3 can already be done without tubes.
