Jump to content

Can you use Extension Tubes to fit the 2.0x Teleconverter?


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Pieter said:

It might work but you'll loose infinity focus. Some even use an extension tube to stack two 2× TC's.

yeah but if you have a 90mm Macro G and go 2.0x which would make it 180mm, wouldn't that be more insane?  It's not like you can go super mega closer even w/ a Macro lens.  It caps out at the minimum too when you want to go more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2020 at 3:27 PM, Pieter said:

Interesting thought, loosing a bit of focus distance at the far end wouldn't matter much when shooting macro. It would certainly help to increase the working distance. Keep us posted on your findings!

The flash doing macro isn't good as it gets blocked by the camera lens.  A ring light for macro is great I've heard, that or lights to the side of the lens, do you have any experience w/ it?  Right now I'm holding a bright light over the macro to get some light or far enough to get the light on the subject which works.  I'm not too crazy w/ macro tbh but I think it's due to the lack of using proper lighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On-camera flash is indeed a very bad position for macro photography. It can be tricky to properly position a light source on your subject. Some extra working distance really helps here.

I'm not really adapt at macro photography myself, but on occasion I put my flash on a tripod a little to the side of the camera and use a remote trigger. A diffuser on the flash really helps to make the lighting less harsh, especially when the flash is close to the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you should be able to, at the expense of distant focus so it may only be relevant for 'close up' or even true macro shots.

The focusing effect of the tubes would be just the same as if used without the TC.

I've used a similar combination in other mounts. Using a 25mm tube & a 50mm lens with a 2X TC will end up with 1:1 & closer.

Note if the TC can be added directly to the lens tubes give a different result on the other side of the TC.
'Camera, tubes, TC, lens' doesn't equal 'Camera, TC, tubes, lens' 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2020 at 8:51 AM, petrochemist said:

Yes you should be able to, at the expense of distant focus so it may only be relevant for 'close up' or even true macro shots.

The focusing effect of the tubes would be just the same as if used without the TC.

I've used a similar combination in other mounts. Using a 25mm tube & a 50mm lens with a 2X TC will end up with 1:1 & closer.

Note if the TC can be added directly to the lens tubes give a different result on the other side of the TC.
'Camera, tubes, TC, lens' doesn't equal 'Camera, TC, tubes, lens' 

So adding a 2x TC w/ ETs doesn't change the minimum focus distance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/10/2020 at 12:47 AM, Pieter said:

It does, adding tubes makes both the minimum and maximum focus distance closer.

if you move it up 35mm does it make your minimum focus closer by 35mm or depending on the distance of someone it goes up w/ a multiplier so 35mm could be like 50mm on some and 70mm on another?  Also, does the maximum focus scale the same 1:1 or is it different too depending on the distances of somethings too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit more complicated that that. Easiest way is to think of the maximum magnification factor of your lens:

new magnification = native magnification + extension / focal length

For example, you have a 50 mm lens with a native magnification of 1:5 and a 36mm extension tube. New magnification becomes:

1/5 + 36mm/50mm = 0.92× (instead of 0.2× originally).

As you'll notice, for longer focal length lenses you'll need a lot more extension tube to gain the same magnification increase than with shorter focal length lenses.

If you're really interested, have a read here:

https://shuttermuse.com/how-to-calculate-mfd-of-a-lens-with-an-extension-tube/

 

Edited by Pieter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hmm that's pretty dreadful indeed... My 18-105 for sure is sharper than that. If I have time tomorrow I'll shoot an example with mine at 40mm f/8 side by side with the 16-55. Sold my kit lens when I bought the 18-105 so can't compare those anymore.
    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...