I previously used a reverse ring on my 50mm f1.8 EF which enabled me to get really close but extension tubes seem like a far more practical choice. First, you still get some flexibility with AF which you lose completely with reverse rings. Second, you still have control over your aperture, unlike with reverse rings where the aperture drops to F0 and depth of field becomes non existent. Third and most importantly, the image quality seems far more credible. Also, the reverse ring I bought online got stuck on my lens and they are now forever sealed together! Doesn't look so good on the lens unfortunately...
I shoot a lot of macro work, and rather than using extension tubes (which can work well, but whose performance on modern lenses I've found erratic due to their frequent use of cheap electrical contacts), I use bellows. Modern mirrorless cameras can easily adapt many old manual focus film SLR lenses, and the camera OEMs once offered a variety of bellows, including some with tilt capabilities (great for the smallest stuff as you can adjust your focal plane to the subject, minimizing the need for stacking). Those old manual lenses were often optically excellent, and can be found inexpensively through ebay and other sources. Being manual, you retain the ability to focus and control aperture for proper depth of field. In my case I've been using old Minolta gear, but there's plenty to be found in the Nikon or Pentax M42 mounts too. The bellows set me back $40, the Minolta to Sony adaptor another $20, and a 135mm f/3.5 Minolta lens I already had (long focal length lenses make superb macros on long bellows). For another $20 for a reversing ring, and about $30 for an old 28mm f/2.8, I can easily shoot individual snowflakes. I should also note that for this sort of work, you definitely need a flash and a diffusor too. 3rd parties do make modern bellows for autofocus lenses, but these can be very expensive - not something you'll want to invest in unless you're shooting macro professionally.
@@DustinAbbottTWI True, but after experiencing camera and lens lock ups and failures with several brands of extension tubes (tubes flexed, electrical contacts shorted, and other QC issues), I found the bellows and old lens approach, for not much more money, achieved far better results.
I have been long planning to get the Laowa 100 but at this moment i think even though i do not own any macro lens but from watching and hearing others I truly think that quality of macro images obtained by the help of extension tubes are nowhere near to those super sharp macro lenses, optically. I really enjoy macro always have with my non macro lenses which only suggests me to get a dedicated macro even though it does occur to me to try these before buying one lol. But I think you ll agree to me.
I do agree that a quality dedicated macro lens is going to be the best tool for the job, though some people can't afford one. This review was about highlighting the potential strengths and weaknesses of the extension tube approach.
Glad I listened in to this video. I have a Canon 100 macro and ext tubes for my Canon 80D. I just assumed I could use the ext tubes on my Canon R (with adapter), but haven't tried yet. My concern now would be the length that would be created with both. You seemed to be suggesting that I might need new tubes made for RF mount. Did I understand that right?
Yes and no (which is why it is confusing). The extension tube has no glass, so it isn't going to cut the amount of light that reaches the sense. But as you focus closer, the way that aperture works (as light passes through it) changes. An F2.8 aperture will only let in about as much equivalent light as F5.6 or so at macro distances. It has nothing to do with the extension tube (or macro lens, for that matter), and everything to do with physics. A lot of people don't understand this, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you!!! I knew I could count on you for an explanation. You are one of the few lens reviewers that knows what they are talking about.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You say the focussing very close lets in less light? You mean when using an extension tube? Or is this also the case for instance with a 90mm f2.8 (that is actually performs like an 5.6)? The way i understood it that this is the case when you get "extra magnification" when actually using an extension tube?
Thank you for this useful insight Dustin How about a slightly different consideration - I ve already got my A7RIII with the Sony 90mm, from which I can often get some really good results. I am happy about functionality and also sharpness/resolution. But I would like to go beyond 1:1, without losing any of the perks that are important to me on the field. As my macro work involves *live* subjects, it is not possible for me to live without AF and also some in-lens stabi (as I have very shaky hands) And problem is that neither AF+stabi are available on any E-mount lens that goes beyond 1:1 Only option would be the new Laowa - but again - I m missing those two things that are important to me. Once, every so often, I might be able to encounter static subjects (i.e. usually snakes), in which case I don't need either AF or stabi (only my tripod!) So, keep using my 90mm seems like the only choice I have at the moment But how big the benefit of an extension tube would be in my case? Could I push it to 1.5 mag (or even 2 times mag) without losing much in terms of sharpness? If so - I would be willing to spend something extra for the extension tube(s) in order to get a good quality one. You mentioned you had some 'play', even these compact lenses you used in this test. The 90mm is not exactly compact (or lightweight!), so things would be worse there...
I think that these extension tubes will still work fine for your application (they come in Sony E-mount versions). There’s a practical limit, however, as the closer you get the more you shadow your subject. I would say either the 13mm or 22mm tubes would work.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin Just a remark on a claim made by the vendor (Vello): "there are no optical elements inside the tubes, so there is no degradation of quality in your glass" Does that actually hold true? I mean, I know there is no additional glass element here, but isn't there at least some minimal IQ degradation (even neglictible) whilst using extension tubes?
You are amazing. Yesterday I've been researching RF 100mm macro, then I realized I could use 50mm RF 1.8 + tubes or Nisi close up filters. Let's see what may be the best solution to save thousand bucks :-) God bless you Dustin 🙏🏻
On mirrorless it is kinda useless especially with native short focal length lenses. I was pretty sad to find out that with my m50 only tele lenses are somewhat useable.
I use the RF 24-105mm f/4 with extension tubes for macro and I noticed I get better magnification with shorter focal lengths when using those tubes. Does the 50mm f/1.8 still get better magnification when the 24-105mm f/4 L is set to 50mm? Your answer will influence whether or not I get the 50mm f/1.8 and keep the extension tubes on to use as my full time Macro lens.
Interesting. In theory the highest magnification is at 105mm, but perhaps the lens allows you to focus more closely at shorter focal distances due to some quirk. The image quality is probably higher, as 105mm seems to be the weakest point in the zoom range.
@@DustinAbbottTWIthank you. To follow up I got the 50mm f/1.8 and, with the extension tubes, it offers the best magnification at up to 0.85x when manually focused to what would be 1 foot if the extension tubes weren't attached. The 35mm f/1.8 with extension tubes needs to get uncomfortably close to a subject to offer the same performance despite it being half macro without them. I even tried the RF 100mm macro today and was surprised the results seemed less sharp than the 50mm with tubes. Full disclosure it was purchased used and returned within minutes because it was poorly maintained and had a dark spot in images from debris inside of the lens that wasn't reported in the eBay listing.
How can i know which magnification i can get using 1 of the 2 or both together? Using for instance 50mmrf or 24-105? Do they work better with zoom lens like 70-200 2.8?
I'm sure there is a formula that could tell you the amount of magnification, but I don't know it off hand. I felt like I got better results with the 50mm, myself.
It seems like there is a problem with your homepage. Only your main site is working. As soon I click on your reviews or any other botton, I get a 404 not found message.
So why are you comparing a 50mm focal length to a 105mm focal length if the 105mm isn’t that good? The 24-105 should be set at…50mm of course so you are comparing apples to apples. I’m thinking this isn’t a fair comparison.
Ummm, the point is getting maximum magnification, and reducing the 24-105mm to 50mm results in a lower magnification level, which defeats the purpose of the video. I spent a lot more on the 24-105 than I did the 50mm, so I'm not trying to bias the results...just report accurately on what I find.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah ummm but it was obvious how much you were criticizing the 24-105 at 105 which AGAIN is apples to oranges! So Ummmm the PROPER way to compare the two would be at the same focal length to see if indeed the 24-105 would improve.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to, as there isn’t a loss of light per se by adding extension tubes (they are just air). But there is always an effective aperture loss of light at macro distances, though that is true whether you are using regular macro lenses or extension tubes. It’s just physics at close focus distances.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'll bet you haven't done much macro "besides this test". Try this, a shot without and with extension tubes, same settings! The shot with the tubes will be slightly underexposed
Thank you Dustin for all your work , keep it up 👌🏻
You’re welcome.
I previously used a reverse ring on my 50mm f1.8 EF which enabled me to get really close but extension tubes seem like a far more practical choice. First, you still get some flexibility with AF which you lose completely with reverse rings. Second, you still have control over your aperture, unlike with reverse rings where the aperture drops to F0 and depth of field becomes non existent. Third and most importantly, the image quality seems far more credible. Also, the reverse ring I bought online got stuck on my lens and they are now forever sealed together! Doesn't look so good on the lens unfortunately...
Uh oh!
Love the new long distance zoom lens like look of your videos. Feels like a British documentary. Just a tea set is missing. 😊
I would like a cup of tea ;)
Super helpful. Thanks for the review.
Glad it was helpful!
I use extension tubes with the RF 85mm 1.2 L….
Results are even sharper than the RF 100mm macro! Is truly unbelievably good
It definitely helps to have a sharp lens to start with.
Which tubes are you using if I may ask? I want to get RF compatible tubes, too.
I was surprised someone used extension tubes with a RF 100-500mm lens. A diopter filter will be more useful for a super telephoto lens.
That long working distance would be handy, though.
Focusing rails can come in handy too
That’s true, though that’s next level work
cheers mate, another good quick chunk of advice
Thank you
@@DustinAbbottTWI you're welcome. Unbiased, helpful, to the point and no cheesy branding.
I shoot a lot of macro work, and rather than using extension tubes (which can work well, but whose performance on modern lenses I've found erratic due to their frequent use of cheap electrical contacts), I use bellows. Modern mirrorless cameras can easily adapt many old manual focus film SLR lenses, and the camera OEMs once offered a variety of bellows, including some with tilt capabilities (great for the smallest stuff as you can adjust your focal plane to the subject, minimizing the need for stacking). Those old manual lenses were often optically excellent, and can be found inexpensively through ebay and other sources. Being manual, you retain the ability to focus and control aperture for proper depth of field. In my case I've been using old Minolta gear, but there's plenty to be found in the Nikon or Pentax M42 mounts too. The bellows set me back $40, the Minolta to Sony adaptor another $20, and a 135mm f/3.5 Minolta lens I already had (long focal length lenses make superb macros on long bellows). For another $20 for a reversing ring, and about $30 for an old 28mm f/2.8, I can easily shoot individual snowflakes. I should also note that for this sort of work, you definitely need a flash and a diffusor too. 3rd parties do make modern bellows for autofocus lenses, but these can be very expensive - not something you'll want to invest in unless you're shooting macro professionally.
That’s an interesting approach, though more technically demanding than the average photographer is going to be willing to invest.
@@DustinAbbottTWI True, but after experiencing camera and lens lock ups and failures with several brands of extension tubes (tubes flexed, electrical contacts shorted, and other QC issues), I found the bellows and old lens approach, for not much more money, achieved far better results.
thank you for doing this
You’re welcome
I have been long planning to get the Laowa 100 but at this moment i think even though i do not own any macro lens but from watching and hearing others I truly think that quality of macro images obtained by the help of extension tubes are nowhere near to those super sharp macro lenses, optically. I really enjoy macro always have with my non macro lenses which only suggests me to get a dedicated macro even though it does occur to me to try these before buying one lol. But I think you ll agree to me.
I do agree that a quality dedicated macro lens is going to be the best tool for the job, though some people can't afford one. This review was about highlighting the potential strengths and weaknesses of the extension tube approach.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ofcourse i understand that. And we love you for your universal approach;)
Glad I listened in to this video. I have a Canon 100 macro and ext tubes for my Canon 80D. I just assumed I could use the ext tubes on my Canon R (with adapter), but haven't tried yet. My concern now would be the length that would be created with both. You seemed to be suggesting that I might need new tubes made for RF mount. Did I understand that right?
That, in theory, might still work, though it could be cumbersome to have adapters and extension tube(s). You may get more flex.
Hi Dustin, I love your work. Can you confirm or deny if extension tubes reduce gathered light? This is something I’m confused about…thanks!
Yes and no (which is why it is confusing). The extension tube has no glass, so it isn't going to cut the amount of light that reaches the sense. But as you focus closer, the way that aperture works (as light passes through it) changes. An F2.8 aperture will only let in about as much equivalent light as F5.6 or so at macro distances. It has nothing to do with the extension tube (or macro lens, for that matter), and everything to do with physics. A lot of people don't understand this, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you!!! I knew I could count on you for an explanation. You are one of the few lens reviewers that knows what they are talking about.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You say the focussing very close lets in less light? You mean when using an extension tube? Or is this also the case for instance with a 90mm f2.8 (that is actually performs like an 5.6)?
The way i understood it that this is the case when you get "extra magnification" when actually using an extension tube?
Thank you for this useful insight Dustin
How about a slightly different consideration - I ve already got my A7RIII with the Sony 90mm, from which I can often get some really good results. I am happy about functionality and also sharpness/resolution. But I would like to go beyond 1:1, without losing any of the perks that are important to me on the field. As my macro work involves *live* subjects, it is not possible for me to live without AF and also some in-lens stabi (as I have very shaky hands)
And problem is that neither AF+stabi are available on any E-mount lens that goes beyond 1:1
Only option would be the new Laowa - but again - I m missing those two things that are important to me. Once, every so often, I might be able to encounter static subjects (i.e. usually snakes), in which case I don't need either AF or stabi (only my tripod!)
So, keep using my 90mm seems like the only choice I have at the moment
But how big the benefit of an extension tube would be in my case?
Could I push it to 1.5 mag (or even 2 times mag) without losing much in terms of sharpness?
If so - I would be willing to spend something extra for the extension tube(s) in order to get a good quality one. You mentioned you had some 'play', even these compact lenses you used in this test. The 90mm is not exactly compact (or lightweight!), so things would be worse there...
I think that these extension tubes will still work fine for your application (they come in Sony E-mount versions). There’s a practical limit, however, as the closer you get the more you shadow your subject. I would say either the 13mm or 22mm tubes would work.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin
Just a remark on a claim made by the vendor (Vello):
"there are no optical elements inside the tubes, so there is no degradation of quality in your glass"
Does that actually hold true? I mean, I know there is no additional glass element here, but isn't there at least some minimal IQ degradation (even neglictible) whilst using extension tubes?
Best reviews!
Thank you
You are amazing. Yesterday I've been researching RF 100mm macro, then I realized I could use 50mm RF 1.8 + tubes or Nisi close up filters. Let's see what may be the best solution to save thousand bucks :-) God bless you Dustin 🙏🏻
Glad to help out!
On mirrorless it is kinda useless especially with native short focal length lenses. I was pretty sad to find out that with my m50 only tele lenses are somewhat useable.
In theory, that shouldn’t be the case other than you can only get so close with some lenses that already allow you to focus very closely.
I use the RF 24-105mm f/4 with extension tubes for macro and I noticed I get better magnification with shorter focal lengths when using those tubes. Does the 50mm f/1.8 still get better magnification when the 24-105mm f/4 L is set to 50mm? Your answer will influence whether or not I get the 50mm f/1.8 and keep the extension tubes on to use as my full time Macro lens.
Interesting. In theory the highest magnification is at 105mm, but perhaps the lens allows you to focus more closely at shorter focal distances due to some quirk. The image quality is probably higher, as 105mm seems to be the weakest point in the zoom range.
@@DustinAbbottTWIthank you. To follow up I got the 50mm f/1.8 and, with the extension tubes, it offers the best magnification at up to 0.85x when manually focused to what would be 1 foot if the extension tubes weren't attached. The 35mm f/1.8 with extension tubes needs to get uncomfortably close to a subject to offer the same performance despite it being half macro without them.
I even tried the RF 100mm macro today and was surprised the results seemed less sharp than the 50mm with tubes. Full disclosure it was purchased used and returned within minutes because it was poorly maintained and had a dark spot in images from debris inside of the lens that wasn't reported in the eBay listing.
How can i know which magnification i can get using 1 of the 2 or both together? Using for instance 50mmrf or 24-105? Do they work better with zoom lens like 70-200 2.8?
I'm sure there is a formula that could tell you the amount of magnification, but I don't know it off hand. I felt like I got better results with the 50mm, myself.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank a lot for your reply and your kindness. It is always a pleasure watching your videos. Regards
Hello
I have a question. Can you use a 50 fish eye lens please ?
You probably can. The results might be a little strange.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you . I’ll try it and keep you posted Dustin if you like ?
It seems like there is a problem with your homepage. Only your main site is working. As soon I click on your reviews or any other botton, I get a 404 not found message.
It’s been resolved now. My webmaster was making some changes, and it caused some temporary problems.
What happened to the audio?
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Around 1:53
So why are you comparing a 50mm focal length to a 105mm focal length if the 105mm isn’t that good? The 24-105 should be set at…50mm of course so you are comparing apples to apples. I’m thinking this isn’t a fair comparison.
Ummm, the point is getting maximum magnification, and reducing the 24-105mm to 50mm results in a lower magnification level, which defeats the purpose of the video. I spent a lot more on the 24-105 than I did the 50mm, so I'm not trying to bias the results...just report accurately on what I find.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah ummm but it was obvious how much you were criticizing the 24-105 at 105 which AGAIN is apples to oranges! So Ummmm the PROPER way to compare the two would be at the same focal length to see if indeed the 24-105 would improve.
I put an extension tube on my 100 mm macro lens to get even more magnification
That definitely works
Dustin you did not fully fit in frame :(
It can be tough when you’ve got to set up the shot before coming on camera.
You forgot the loss of light😉
I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to, as there isn’t a loss of light per se by adding extension tubes (they are just air). But there is always an effective aperture loss of light at macro distances, though that is true whether you are using regular macro lenses or extension tubes. It’s just physics at close focus distances.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'll bet you haven't done much macro "besides this test". Try this, a shot without and with extension tubes, same settings! The shot with the tubes will be slightly underexposed