Hoya Close-Up Filters -OR- Kenko Extension Tubes

[krzkrzkrz]

Greetings,

I'm thinking of getting into macro photography and not really interested in purchasing a "true" macro lens for various reasons.

To keep it short, for those who are wondering:
a) Macro lenses are expensive, for my taste
b) PERSONALLY, I like to travel light and dont see the need to carry an extra lens with me that I may only use on special occasions
c) I'd like to give macro photography a TRY

I was thinking about this alternative solution. Either the Hoya Close-Up Filters -OR- Kenko Extension Tubes.

Does anyone know the advantage of having one over the other?
Any suggestions / feedback / comments / samples will also be appreciated.

Krz

[cwphoto]

I suspect tubes are optically better, although I don't think you lose f-stops with a filter like you do with a tube.

[Forced Perfect]

I suspect tubes are optically better, although I don't think you lose f-stops with a filter like you do with a tube.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm really just a dedicated macro lens guy. ;)

Close-up filter

Pros:
-Easier to attach than extension tubes
-No risk of sensor dust due to lens changes/removal of lens to add tubes

Cons:
-Optics are involved so quality matters (no matter what you're losing some quality by using more glass)
-If you use UV filters to protect your lens you should remove them to prevent light fall off from stacking filters
-Extra time required if you do use filters to safely swap them

Extension tube

Pros:
-No optics means no loss in quality (well I suspect you lose a little bit, but nothing near what a glass filter does)
-If you're paranoid about protecting your glass with a UV filter (like me! :P)you never have to remove the filter
-Just about any tube will work just as well as any other tube because they're bascially plastic with the contacts for the electrical lens connection

Cons:
-You gotta take off your lens which means you can possibly get more dust on the lens/sensor
-Removing the lens and adding stuff like that increases the chance a lens could slip our of your hand if you're not working on a table or other resting spot
-Light fall off occurs in the corners due to the extended length the light has to travel (the beam gets narrow the farther you are from the sensor)
-Eats some light, I think it's 2/3 a stop or something

Both

Pros:
-Cheaper than a dedicated macro lens!
-Small enough to bring with you pretty much anywhere

Cons:
-Both are subject to a loss of quality and/or light compaired to a real macro
-Both lose infinity focus when used. Meaning you can't go and take a photo of a non-macro thing without removing the filter or tubes as you can with a real macro lens


Naturally at the end of this I gotta pitch getting a real macro lens. I think they're worth the cost and space (especially if you get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM which is a great lens and a good value). Of course a real lens has to be carried and paid for. But in the end I think it's worth it.

The Sigma EX 50mm f/2.8 is a nice lens. I've gotten some nice photos out of my wife's copy.

[cwphoto]

-Eats some light, I think it's 2/3 a stop or something.

Well that depends on the magnification. The theory goes that you lose two stops of light at Life-Size magnification compared to infinity (although somewhat complicated by modern floating lens element construction).

Good summary though.

[Forced Perfect]

Well that depends on the magnification. The theory goes that you lose two stops of light at Life-Size magnification compared to infinity (although somewhat complicated by modern floating lens element construction).

Good summary though.

Yeah, I haven't really researched this stuff. It's just bits I've been able to remember. :P

[RebelRat]

Close up filters may take longer to put on. You have to screw them on to the lens. You chance putting fingerprints on the lens, thus, you spend extra time cleaning the prints.

Unless your lens all take the same filter size you may have to get adapters or change your lens before using the filter.

[krzkrzkrz]

Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm really just a dedicated macro lens guy.

....

Great description! Very informative. However, I'm more into preserving the quality as best as possible. How much IQ (image quality) is lost when using close-up filters? Perhaps, there is not much difference?

Additionally, you mentioned 2/3 stops with extension tubes? Does this mean it takes longer for the camera to get light in and therefore prone to camera shake?

I'm aware that you have to get a specific size for close-up filters in order for them to fit your lens properly. Does the same apply for extension tubes?

[RebelRat]

losing 2/3 of a stop - means your f/1.8 will seem like it is getting f/2.5 of light. It really isn't too big of a deal. I usually shoot about f/8 or higher with my tubes. If it's too dark, I use my flash to help light the subject.

There is only one diameter for your Canon. The only size difference is the different lenghts of the tubes to achieve different amount of magnification.

[michaelb]

The other thing you might want to consider is a Canon 250D or 500D close up filter. These are higher quality double element filters that are supposed to be much better than typical close up filters. IQ is supposed to be good.

[krzkrzkrz]

Ok, now I am a bit confused on what to get . The Canon 250D filter sounds good. Some sample shots at: Fred Miranda

However, there is very little magnification that can be achieved. Im looking to get into the subject = more magnification. Something to the likes of the photos shown at: Wasps

Im also thinking of using "it" with my 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Any suggestions?