Macro extension tube or Macro/Wide Angle lens adapter???

[ladysith]

Hi all,

Just wondering which one's worth getting? I've been tossing up between the Raynox DCR extension tube and the Macro/Wide Angle lens adapter from removed - site rule breach

The tube is worth more than the adapter but that doesn't always mean it's better, right?

Your advice is appreciated.

P.S. unfortunately I can't afford a real macro lens so I have to settle for these ones for now.

[Mary Anne]

Sorry I cannot help as I have never heard of them before..

The cheapest way I have heard to get a macro lens without getting a dedicated macro lens.
Is to buy a reversing ring and turn your lens around the other way

[ameerat42]

The 0.45x is the wide angle conversion factor. I guess (based on experience with a similar device) that the Macro part is obtained by turning the adapter backwards on the camera lens. If so, then your macro multiplier factor will be 1/0.45, or about 2.2X.

Well, you've only got to HOPE that the optics are as good as they tout in the description. I would doubt that they would be for the price, something < $100. That's implying you're going to get good quality for less than the price of many dedicated lenses. The one I (still) have (somewhere) gave bad IQ in wide mode. At least I only paid about $20 years ago.

Can you try it out before you buy it? Sure, it promises to be a 2-in-1 convenience, but at what cost? A reversing ring for a normal lens would be much less, and as for wide angle, well, maybe just a wide-angle lens.
Am.

[William W]

What camera and lens(es) do you have?

It is likely buying an extension tube (or a set of tubes) will be a better solution for you.
Kenko have a good set of three tubes for both Nikon and Canon DSLR.
Kenko sell their 12mm and (I think) their 25mm tube, separately, also.

WW

[Bennymiata]

Go for the Kenko tube set.
Cheap, well made, work well and can be used on any lens.
You can pick up a set of 3 for around $135.00 on the grey market.

[davearnold]

I recently brought the Kenko tubes, when they work they are great, but sometimes the AF is a little erratic, I know people will say they use manual focus for Macro, but I like to AF first and then adjust if necessary.

From limited use so far, seems to work better on 100mm L then 60mm macro lenses, have not tried them on other lenses yet but will in time.

Cheers Dave

[William W]

I recently brought the Kenko tubes, when they work they are great, but sometimes the AF is a little erratic . . . from limited use so far, seems to work better on 100mm L then 60mm macro lenses, have not tried them on other lenses yet but will in time.

My expectation is that it is the subject and lighting differences which are causing erratic AF, rather than using the tubes on “this lens” or “that lens”.

Those two Macro lenses tend to (relatively) “sometimes take their time” when in macro mode anyway because of a lack of contrast differentiation and thus the AF cannot lock really quickly.
Add any extension, either tube or bellows, no matter what brand, and the AF is working just that much harder.

WW

[ving]

go tubes. adding glass like you have suggested to the front of your lens will not aide image quality but tubes are glassless and therefore IQ wont suffer (in theory)

[Gemini2261]

If you have a lens over 100mm take a look at Canon's "500D close-up lens" around $200. Screws to the front of your lens and the quality is very good for a fraction of the price of a dedicated macro lens. It is recommended by some top pro photographers :) Do not confuse this with the ordinary close up magnifying lenses.

[Bennymiata]

Using a 60mm lens with macro tubes is always going to be a problem, as the front of the lens is so close to the subject that it blocks the light - hence the poor auto-focus.
If you are using a 60mm or less lens, you really need a ring or macro flash with it to give you enough light as no internal or hot-shoe mounted flash could actually get any light in there between the front of the lens and the object.
Tubes work better with longer lenses.