Extension Vs Close-Up

[CMoore]

Do close-up "lens" and extension tubes do the same thing.?
If not..... i understand what an extension tube is for, how do the screw-on close up lens differ.?
Thank You

 

[MattKing]

The close up lenses that screw into the filter threads are essentially magnifying diopters. They reduce the contrast and resolution more than extension tubes, but they have advantages as well;
1) close up diopter lenses mean little or no speed penalty - extension tubes require exposure compensation;
2) close up diopter lenses give you higher magnification at the same working distance. Extension tubes give higher magnification at closer working distances. Sometimes working at closer distances is problematic or at least less convenient;
3) close up diopter lenses are relatively light and small and convenient to use;
4) extension tubes can require relatively complex linkages in order to permit full aperture viewing and metering and, with some leaf shutter lenses, lens cocking and shutter release. Close-up diopter lenses have no affect on the camera to lens connection

 

[CMoore]

Could you be a bit more detailed please Matt.?
Thanks for the info..... I Appreciate It

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you get the screw-on kind, try to find an "Achromat" version. These cost more than the simple screw-on magnifying lenses because they have a more complex design - two pieces of glass glued together. Better image quality.

There is a list of achromat close up lenses at <this link>

 

[CMoore]

10-4..... Thank You

 

[Ian Grant]

Perhaps missing in the explanations is close up lenses are a compromise optically, but they are simple for the reasons Matt listed. However for higher quality results extension tubes are much better, you ideally want a set that couples with the aperture control of the lens.

Way back around 1969 and the early 70's I did a lot of close-up and macro work at School and University, initially I tried close-up filters but quickly found that extension tubes were far superior and simple enough to use even with a manual camera with an on body meter (Zenit E). Later it was even easier with a Spotmatic F. I should add I also used bellows when I need to get closer/larger magnification than the extension tubes allowed and would reverse the standard lens or use an enlarger lens. Schneider have sold Componons as Macro lenses and they work well.

Ian

 

[cooltouch]

I've always used macro lenses with extensions when necessary instead of close-up lenses. I just never trusted the lenses to deliver the resolution I required. Most of my early macro work was done with 50mm macro lenses, and the big downside to using them is the distance from the subject to the front of the lens, especially when I used bellows. I mean there were times that my subject was almost touching the front of the lens. Not so good. It's times like these when longer focal length macro lenses can be appreciated because they allow for more standoff between the lens and the subject. This can often be the difference between getting the shot and not.

 

[narsuitus]

Supplemental Close-Up Lenses—these lenses attach to the front of a lens and optically reduce the closest focusing distance. They are available in strengths from +.025 to +10. The higher number indicates a stronger lens. A set of supplemental lenses typically consists of a +1, +2, and +4 lens. These three lenses may be used individually or in combination with each other.

Pro:

a. Low cost.

b. Good for close-up photography.

c. Exposure is not affected by a lens extension factor.

d. There is no loss of camera auto-focus or auto-exposure features.

e. Able to use on cameras that do not have interchangeable lenses.

Con:

a. Not good for macrophotography.

b. Some loss of image quality.

c. Must use a small aperture in order to compensate for the loss of image quality.

d. The stronger the supplemental lens, the greater the loss of image quality. For example, the quality of an image formed with a +10 lens is of poorer quality compared to the image formed with a +3 lens.

e. Stacking supplemental lenses (such as combining the +1, +2, and +4 lenses) results in a greater loss of image quality.

f. Difficult to select the correct lens strength for the desired image magnification.

g. Difficult to remove tightly attached close-up lens from cameras lens.

Extension Tubes—these tubes are available in varying lengths. They are inserted between the camera body and the lens to physically increase the distance between the optical center of the lens and the surface of the film or digital image sensor. These tubes may be used individually or in combination with each other. These tubes are also called extension rings.

Pro:

a. Great for close-up photography.

b. Great for macrophotography.

c. Relatively inexpensive when compared to a bellows unit or a macro lens.

Con:

a. Works only on cameras with interchangeable lenses.

b. Each tube can only extend the distance between the optical center of the lens and the surface of the film or the surface of the digital camera’s image sensor by a fixed length.

c. Difficult to select the correct tube length for the desired image magnification.

d. Difficult to quickly change tubes when you need to alter the image magnification.

e. Difficult to remove tightly attached tubes

f. Possible loss of camera auto-focus and/or auto-exposure features.

g. Exposure is affected by a lens extension factor.



Close-up and Macro Equipment by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[DWThomas]

I think narsuitus touched on an important consideration -- "closeup" vs "macro." I've noted a lot of medium format gear tends to have a minimum focus distance of three feet and sometimes four or five. With such lenses, a +0.5, +0.7, or +1 will tweak that enough to handle a close portrait or that stone carving on the gatepost. And in such circumstances the deterioration in quality is unlikely to be detectable.

When you start trying to show the internals of your collection of pocket watches, you will want to bring out the heavy stuff.

Note that "diopter" number is the reciprocal of the focal length in meters. 1 diopter = 1 meter, 2 diopter = 0.5 meter, etc. When such a supplemental lens is put over a lens focused at infinity, that diopter number determines the longest distance at which the combination will focus. So with a +1, anything farther away than one meter can't be brought into optimum focus. That combined with the limited travel of a typical focusing helical results a pretty limited range, whereas a typical "macro" lens usually will do from infinity down.

For my Bronica I had the good fortune of catching a full macro lens at a ridiculously low price which smoothly cranks down from infinity focus to 1:1 on the film. That is seriously cool -- but weighs over two pounds! I haven't used it a lot, but it is a very satisfying hunk of metal and glass!

Anyway, this thread is a great collection of information.

 

[Jim Jones]

In my experience, some fast lenses are poor performers when used for high magnification with extension tubes.

 

[ic-racer]

Close-up lenses change the focal length of your lens. Extension tubes change the working range of the focusing helicoid. They are not mutually exclusive technologies.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@CMoore - do you know what kind of magnifications you are most interested in photographing?

@Ian Grant, @narsuitu, and others who report poor optical results from screw-in close up lenses - did you try achromatic lenses? While they are probably not as good as a real top shelf macro lens, and are not great for high magnification work, within their limitations they offer significantly better image quality than those single lens set sold in sets of +1, +2, and +4 lenses.

For examples, look at the photos at the bottom of <this website>

More discussion of achromatic close-up lenses on <this site>

 

[Ian Grant]

@CMoore - do you know what kind of magnifications you are most interested in photographing?

@Ian Grant, @narsuitu, and others who report poor optical results from screw-in close up lenses - did you try achromatic lenses? While they are probably not as good as a real top shelf macro lens, and are not great for high magnification work, within their limitations they offer significantly better image quality than those single lens set sold in sets of +1, +2, and +4 lenses.

For examples, look at the photos at the bottom of <this website>

More discussion of achromatic close-up lenses on <this site>

Yes I have used high end close up lenses, I prefer to use extension tubes or bellows, and a prime lens reversed or an enlarger lens for extreme close up. At the time I did a lot of close up and macro work I was a student on a tight budget and buying a macro lens wasn't an option, I had to use what I had at the time achromatic close up lenses weren't available. If I still shot 35mm regularly and wanted to shoot close-up/macro I'd buy a Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 macro lens (Adaptall type) to use with my Spotmatics and K/M mount Pentax cameras.

As I mainly shoot LF I don't have an issue, I have a few lenses of various focal length designed for use from Infinity to 1:1 and could use them with a roll film back as well.

Ian

 

[CMoore]

c. Must use a small aperture in order to compensate for the loss of image quality.

That is something i was not aware of.
Is there a general definition of "small aperture" ...... f/11 or smaller perhaps.?
Thank You

 

[trendland]

Perhaps missing in the explanations is close up lenses are a compromise optically, but they are simple for the reasons Matt listed. However for higher quality results extension tubes are much better, you ideally want a set that couples with the aperture control of the lens.

Way back around 1969 and the early 70's I did a lot of close-up and macro work at School and University, initially I tried close-up filters but quickly found that extension tubes were far superior and simple enough to use even with a manual camera with an on body meter (Zenit E). Later it was even easier with a Spotmatic F. I should add I also used bellows when I need to get closer/larger magnification than the extension tubes allowed and would reverse the standard lens or use an enlarger lens. Schneider have sold Componons as Macro lenses and they work well.

Ian

I would not use any close up lens - just if it is from highest optical characteristics!
That lenses have been all times the simple and more cheap way to enter macro photography!
But that macro photography have been allways a restricted macro photography!
And the pricing for tubes isn't soo much more!
AS you stated with tubes the optical characteristcs of your lens is not concerned!
Because there is no glass between! So the best glass with best correction from close up lenses will
allways limit the performance! But to newbees who just want to try out it may be OK!
BTW. looking at digital systems and their problems to seperate portraits from background caused from little sensors - such tubes (the smalest tube ) is excellent to have enormious seperation
(extrem unsharp background from smallest deep of field sharpness)!
The issue that you have the lost of speed (what Matt stated) I personally would not feel as real
disadvantage of tubes or as an real advantage from close up lenses!

with regards

 

[Ian Grant]

In my experience, some fast lenses are poor performers when used for high magnification with extension tubes.

Years ago many magazine articles recommended using a Tessar (or type) lens for close up work rather than the more typical f2-f1.2 standard 50mm-55mm manufacturers standard lenses. The slower standards f1.8-f2 are preferred over the faster ones for close up work.

@runswithsizzers I'd forgotten that I did do some close up work last year with a Spotmatic and a 105mm f2.8 lens with extension tubes. I don't find it particularly slow changing extension tubes even with these screw thread cameras, it's only marginally faster swapping filters

Ian

 

[trendland]

That is something i was not aware of.
Is there a general definition of "small aperture" ...... f/11 or smaller perhaps.?
Thank You

The open lens (for example a 2.0) is a small value (just "2") the aperature " 22 " is often seen
as a big (great/higher) aperature (because the value 22 is high) but don't mix it!
Higher or lower is in regard of the value of light wich come through!
To have in mind for the beginning it help to regard your lens (locking through the unmounted lens)
and "play" with the aperature ring! At f/16 it is a very small "ring" light comming through!
If aperature is opened max at 2.0/1.7/1.4/1.2 there is no lamelle seen (noticable) most light is comming through the lens! If you just do this some times you'll never mix this issue for livetime!
It is important to understand photography from the very basics!

with regards

 

[Dan Fromm]

This is an old, old question that has been answered many times.

In the '60s and '70s Modern Photography magazine that used to be ran educational articles on a two year cycle. One of the pieces that came back every other year addressed the question "Which is better? Close-up lenses or extension tubes?" The article reported on tests of around a dozen slow (f/1.7 - f/2) normal lenses for 35 mm SLRs. The tests measured resolution and contrast on film at a range of magnifications.

The answer was always the same. It depends on the lens. There is not general answer. The only way to find out which is better on a particular lens is to try both.

OP, there are really no bad macro lenses (I'm not speaking of wide-angle lenses engraved "Macro" or of zoom lenses) for 35 mm SLRs. Used one for most SLR mount systems are quite inexpensive. Don't settle for second best, get the right tool, a proper macro lens.

 

[trendland]

That is something i was not aware of.
Is there a general definition of "small aperture" ...... f/11 or smaller perhaps.?
Thank You

Sorry CMoore (I wonder about 2678 repys of you here on Apug / Photrio and such basic question)
But I don't care about - "" shit happens"

Sorry your question is in regard of deep of field! Yes macro photography need f32 f64 f128 (from the value of light = often much to low light for macro

Sorry - with regards

 

[trendland]

Better said = for macro you allways have a need of MORE deep of field sharpness / to same time you have the need of more light (caused from lost via using tubes)!

with regards

 

[narsuitus]

@Ian Grant, @narsuitu, and others who report poor optical results from screw-in close up lenses - did you try achromatic lenses?

Sorry if I mislead you. I was not saying that images from supplemental close-up lenses were poor. I was saying that there was loss of image quality.

To avoid too much loss in image quality, I use high-quality Nikon and B+W supplemental close-up lenses (some of which are achromatic).

 

[narsuitus]

That is something i was not aware of.
Is there a general definition of "small aperture" ...... f/11 or smaller perhaps.?

I cannot give you a general definition but I can tell you what I do.

I primarily use supplemental close-up lenses when I am shooting a compact camera that does not have interchangeable lenses. The smallest f/stop on these cameras is f/8. Therefore, I stop down to f/8.

Occasionally, I must travel with a light photographic load. When I do, instead of a macro lens, I carry supplemental close-up lenses to use on the limited number of lenses I carry. If I need a close-up that is closer than what my lenses can provide, I use the supplemental close-up lens at f/8, f/11, or f/16.

 

[CMoore]

10-4..... Thanks