Extension tubes with what lenses?

Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
304
Location
ny
Hi everyone, i been sinking deeper and deeper into NAS.

i got my 80-200mm 2.8 push/pull yesterday and then a few hours later ordered a promaster extensiont tube(same as kenko). they will AF.

I have these lenses (so far): 80-200mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8, 55-200mm VR. (my widest is my 50mm, hmm.. have to do something about that)

Which lenses out of the ones i have is a good combo with the promaster set? Its the 3 piece set same as kenko.. i would love to try the 80-200mm but would it be too heavy to support the weight of the lens? or is the 50mm better for this since it focus much closer?

:biggrin:
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
Depends on what you want to use the tubes for. I use tubes on my 500mm to get a "macro" lens for serious working distance around dragonflies. A 200mm macro requires that you get within 18-24 inches to fill the frame, and that's just too close for most of them. By comparison, a 500mm lets me get about the same image but from five feet. But I'd worry about the heavy 80-200/f2.8 on the Kenko tubes - those are not the most solid things I've seen.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
304
Location
ny
i am into the bugs but i do like flowers and other macro. not sure what i really like since i never had a macro anything.. but now flowers seems very interesting. :) any recommendations?
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
Well, since you have the tubes, try 'em and see what you like. Not every lens is comfortable at its closest focusing distance, so try more than one of the tubes. The most interesting thing will be to see what FOV you prefer. I prefer pretty long lenses and narrow FOV, even for flowers. In particular, try them on your 55-200.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,631
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Depends on what you want to use the tubes for. I use tubes on my 500mm to get a "macro" lens for serious working distance around dragonflies. A 200mm macro requires that you get within 18-24 inches to fill the frame, and that's just too close for most of them. By comparison, a 500mm lets me get about the same image but from five feet. But I'd worry about the heavy 80-200/f2.8 on the Kenko tubes - those are not the most solid things I've seen.

there are alot of shooters in the macro forum using the kenkos w/ the 300/4, so he should be fine
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
2,357
Location
Missouri
The 300/4 can really benefit from the tubes. There have been many times that I needed to focus closer than the lens allowed. In addition, my 300 is sharper than my 80-200, so it gets used more "up close".
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,631
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
The 300/4 can really benefit from the tubes. There have been many times that I needed to focus closer than the lens allowed. In addition, my 300 is sharper than my 80-200, so it gets used more "up close".
i have kenkos coming next week
how much closer can they get you on the 300/4 ?
I think min distance is like 7' w/o them
have u tried them a TC and the 300/4 ?
thx
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
304
Location
ny
i dont have the tubes yet.. they are coming next week..

as im playing with my 80-200 i realise something.. it is one HEAVY piece of equiptment!!! my hands achually hurts after 5 mins.. im not sure if i will keep this lens just bc of its handholdablity. other wise its a beautiful lens!

i will definitly try out all the lenses with the tube and post any decent pics i can get. :)

:smile:
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
there are alot of shooters in the macro forum using the kenkos w/ the 300/4, so he should be fine
This of course is true, but then again, the 300/f4 has its own tripod collar. The 80-200 push-pull does not, so the entire weight of the (heavy) lens will be trying to pry the tube apart. This is not the same thing as with the 300/f4, which only has to support the weight of the camera. Hmm... maybe you're right. A D2x or D3 weighs not much different than a 300/f4 AFS...
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
Have you seen Ronnie's work? These are with a D200 and an af-s 300 f/4 most are shot with a nikon PN-11 tube:

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/d200_nature_of_louisiana_2007

Amazing stuff. You can find the PN-11 tubes if you look. I believe you lose the autofocus capability.
The PN-11 (and PK-12 and PK-13) all lose AF since they do not have a screwdriver AF coupler, nor do they have electrical passthrough of any sort. This means that you lose metering too, unless you have a camera capable of metering AI lenses (D200 and up) and you have a lens with an aperture ring.

I use the PN-11 a lot with my longer lenses.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,631
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
This of course is true, but then again, the 300/f4 has its own tripod collar. The 80-200 push-pull does not, so the entire weight of the (heavy) lens will be trying to pry the tube apart. This is not the same thing as with the 300/f4, which only has to support the weight of the camera. Hmm... maybe you're right. A D2x or D3 weighs not much different than a 300/f4 AFS...
collar ?
do u mean if it's used in a tripod ?
I am going to handhold mine (at 1st anyway)
The countless reviews I have read say 1 or even 2 tubes stacked are fine but all 3 start to sway but i have never read where they have 'come loose'....time will tell i guess
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
I've used my Kenko tubes (with the D3) with my 300/4, 105 micro and 85/1.4. I really like what they do for decreasing the minimum focus distance.

Sorry Randy, I am typically not into measuring things (photographically), so I have no idea what the minimum becomes with 300/4 and tubes. :redface:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,631
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
I've used my Kenko tubes (with the D3) with my 300/4, 105 micro and 85/1.4. I really like what they do for decreasing the minimum focus distance.

Sorry Randy, I am typically not into measuring things (photographically), so I have no idea what the minimum becomes with 300/4 and tubes. :redface:
me 2 on the measuring but like multiple feet closer ?
you know how far back you gotta stand w/ just the 300/4....with my eyes i can barely see the bug
ever try the TC and the 300/4 and a tube or 2
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
me 2 on the measuring but like multiple feet closer ?
you know how far back you gotta stand w/ just the 300/4....with my eyes i can barely see the bug
ever try the TC and the 300/4 and a tube or 2
Yes, I'm always surprised at the minimum distance on the 300, I think my 80-200 AFS is much closer so this drives me nuts. Hmmmm......I'd guess at least a foot, but not too sure. I remember being fairly happy with the 36mm (or is it 32??), and how close I could get.

I have not tried tubes + TC, may have to do that today. I've got a few flowers that just opened that I'd like to shoot. :smile:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,631
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Yes, I'm always surprised at the minimum distance on the 300, I think my 80-200 AFS is much closer so this drives me nuts. Hmmmm......I'd guess at least a foot, but not too sure. I remember being fairly happy with the 36mm (or is it 32??), and how close I could get.

I have not tried tubes + TC, may have to do that today. I've got a few flowers that just opened that I'd like to shoot. :smile:
thx
are you gonna visit Daniel Stowe when you are in town ?
The bugs are rockin there right now and tons of hummers.
420mm is fine to get some great shots of the hummers as they are used to people
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
collar ?
do u mean if it's used in a tripod ?
I am going to handhold mine (at 1st anyway)
The countless reviews I have read say 1 or even 2 tubes stacked are fine but all 3 start to sway but i have never read where they have 'come loose'....time will tell i guess
Yes, a tripod. You know, the thing with three legs? :wink: I pretty much always use a tripod for macro work. About the only exception is when I'm after butterflies and have a flash.

Yeah, like I said, Jeff and I tried pretty hard to find a problem with all three tubes stacked, but we just couldn't do it. So even though it's a very shaky configuration, all three works fine. But it sure isn't confidence-inspiring. :910:
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
2,357
Location
Missouri
Randy

i have kenkos coming next week
how much closer can they get you on the 300/4 ?
I think min distance is like 7' w/o them
have u tried them a TC and the 300/4 ?
thx
My 300 f/4 is the non-AFS left over from my F4 days. I had a set of tubes back then and used them on occasion with this lens. Unfortunately, I can't remember how much closer they could get me. I used the set-up with a cheap Tamron 1.4X to photograph lizards. Worked just fine as my subjects were nearly always in the center of the frame.
I plan on acquiring the new tubes soon.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom