Canon 500D or Kenko Bellows for Macro?

[Ken Chandler]

Hi all,

Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:

1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
or
2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII

Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
expensive.

I don't have a huge need for macro, but it would be nice to have something
in my kit should the occasion arise. If anyone has some feedback on either
of the above options I'd appreciate hearing it.

TIA, Ken

[Scott Coutts]

Ken Chandler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>
> 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
> or
> 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>

Wait a sec - are we talking belows or tubes? I assume tubes by the price...

> Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
> expensive.
>
> I don't have a huge need for macro, but it would be nice to have something
> in my kit should the occasion arise. If anyone has some feedback on either
> of the above options I'd appreciate hearing it.
>

Yup, I think I'd recommend tubes. The tubes will allow you to change the
level of macro you're dealing with whereas the 500D wont. Also, the
tubes can go on any lens (although this isnt really required, it can
sometimes be useful).

Scott.

[M i c C u l l e n]

"Ken Chandler" <news(at)kenchandler_com>, far, far away from here,
appears to have written:

[snips]

> 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
> or
> 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII

> Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
> expensive.

Everything I've ever read on the subject says get the extension tubes.
The glass is for when the tubes aren't an option.

As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting the tubes from HugoSo.
--

cheers, Mic (Reply address works...)

"We can never be really prepared for that which is wholly new. We have to adjust ourselves, and every radical adjustment is a crisis in self-esteem; we undergo a test, we have to prove ourselves. It needs inordinate self-confidence to face drastic change
without inner trembling."
- Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983) Longshoreman and philosopher

[Brenton]

Ken Chandler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>
> 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
> or
> 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>
> Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
> expensive.
>
> I don't have a huge need for macro, but it would be nice to have something
> in my kit should the occasion arise. If anyone has some feedback on either
> of the above options I'd appreciate hearing it.
>
> TIA, Ken
>
>

Ken.. I have had Kenko extension tubes... there build quality feels and
looks like crap.. all rattly and little light dampening inside.. I nave
a Canon Extension tube EF25.. its build quality is great... but I have
only used it a few times.
Ken .. check your email.
BRenton

[Scott Coutts]

M i c C u l l e n wrote:

> "Ken Chandler" <news(at)kenchandler_com>, far, far away from here,
> appears to have written:
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
>>or
>>2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>
>
>
>>Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
>>expensive.
>
>
> Everything I've ever read on the subject says get the extension tubes.
> The glass is for when the tubes aren't an option.
>
> As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting the tubes from HugoSo.
>

Dont buy the Canon ones! THey're such a waste of money. I bought some
second hand no-name ones and they work perfectly well, for the grand sum
of AU$20. They have no electronics or glass in them so there's not
really anything that can be wrong with them, or anything that can be
affect your image quality.

Scott.

[Scott Coutts]

Brenton wrote:

> Ken Chandler wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>>
>> 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
>> or
>> 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>>
>> Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
>> expensive.
>>
>> I don't have a huge need for macro, but it would be nice to have
>> something
>> in my kit should the occasion arise. If anyone has some feedback on
>> either
>> of the above options I'd appreciate hearing it.
>>
>> TIA, Ken
>
> Ken.. I have had Kenko extension tubes... there build quality feels and
> looks like crap.. all rattly and little light dampening inside.. I nave
> a Canon Extension tube EF25.. its build quality is great... but I have
> only used it a few times.
> Ken .. check your email.
> BRenton

hehehe Ok, that just contradicts what I wrote just now... Do you find
that they affect the image quality? Mine are painted matte black inside,
I can't really complain or compliment the build quality of mine -
they're just tubes, with spring loaded contacts running through them!

Scott.

[Brenton]

Scott Coutts wrote:
>
>
> Brenton wrote:
>
>> Ken Chandler wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>>>
>>> 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
>>> or
>>> 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>>>
>>> Option 1 is a US$132 problem, 2 a US$120 so neither option is hugely
>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> I don't have a huge need for macro, but it would be nice to have
>>> something
>>> in my kit should the occasion arise. If anyone has some feedback on
>>> either
>>> of the above options I'd appreciate hearing it.
>>>
>>> TIA, Ken
>>
>>
>> Ken.. I have had Kenko extension tubes... there build quality feels
>> and looks like crap.. all rattly and little light dampening inside.. I
>> nave a Canon Extension tube EF25.. its build quality is great... but I
>> have only used it a few times.
>> Ken .. check your email.
>> BRenton
>
>
> hehehe Ok, that just contradicts what I wrote just now... Do you find
> that they affect the image quality? Mine are painted matte black inside,
> I can't really complain or compliment the build quality of mine -
> they're just tubes, with spring loaded contacts running through them!
>
> Scott.
>

Well.. I was writing my post as you must have posted yours... I agree
that the cheaps ones are a good option... I got my set of Kenko's for
about the same ($40) from a pawn shop.. mine did not have any light
dampening inside.. I could see the pins right through then (maybe this
is why it was in the pawn shop) Do they take a good photo.. I don't
know... I never use mine... I sold them on ebay and funded a EF 25... it
does take a good photo... it is lined inside with balack velvety stuff
and has a really nice "feel". Also the canon snaps on and off the body
nicely.. the Kenko from memory felt "sticky"... like it was getting stuck.
BRenton

[M i c C u l l e n]

Scott Coutts <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au>, far, far away from here,
appears to have written:

[snips]

> > As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting the tubes from HugoSo.
> >
>
> Dont buy the Canon ones!

Not a chance - I figured that with the "Kenko" in the subject line,
that's the stuff we were talking about. (Even though we're talking about
tubes rather than bellows :-)
--

cheers, Mic (Reply address works...)

He who begins many things finishes but few.
- Italian Proverb

[Ken Chandler]

"M i c C u l l e n" wrote:
> "Ken Chandler" wrote:
[snips]

> > 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
> > or
> > 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>
> Everything I've ever read on the subject says get the extension tubes.
> The glass is for when the tubes aren't an option.

Thanks for your input, along with Scott and Brenton, much appreciated.

> As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting the tubes from HugoSo.

It appears I'll be going this route in the new year, if they suck too much I
guess there's eBay :-).

Thanks again, KC

[Ken Chandler]

"M i c C u l l e n" wrote:
> Scott Coutts wrote:

[snips]

> > Dont buy the Canon ones!

> Not a chance - I figured that with the "Kenko" in the subject line,
> that's the stuff we were talking about. (Even though we're talking about
> tubes rather than bellows :-)

A guy stuffs up ONE term and you guys ....

:-P

[Ken Chandler]

"Ken Chandler" wrote:

[snips]

> Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>
> 1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
> or
> 2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII

Replying to my own post ... oh dear.

I was Googling information regarding how working distance/min focus distance
is affected when using the tubes and came across this site:

<http://www.thkphoto.com/products/kenko/slrc-04.html>

Those "sample" pics ... not likely to be based on reality unless that's a
really small mountain (pebble?) or can you really focus that far off with
the tubes?

Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min focus
distance?

Thanks, KC

[Derek]

Hi Ken

I have the EF Kenko set, and the build quality is fine, so not sure what was
up with Brenton's. Most Pro's I know use the Kenko's, as their are no
optics, who really cares what brand they are.

I have used exactly the setup you describe, Kenko Tubes with the 70-200L for
a job did for a customer with a heap of keyrings & badges, the results were
very good. The advantage of using the zoom, is you can control the working
distance quite well inside a lighting cocoon where working distances are not
easily changed.

Adding longer or more tubes reduces the min focus distances, and increases
magnification.

I also have an EF50f2.5 Macro, which you can also add the tubes too for
incredible magnification.

"> Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min focus
> distance?
>
> Thanks, KC
>
>

[Scott Coutts]

Ken Chandler wrote:

> "M i c C u l l e n" wrote:
>
>>Scott Coutts wrote:
>
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>>Dont buy the Canon ones!
>
>
>>Not a chance - I figured that with the "Kenko" in the subject line,
>>that's the stuff we were talking about. (Even though we're talking about
>>tubes rather than bellows :-)
>
>
> A guy stuffs up ONE term and you guys ....
>
> :-P
>


You got it wro-ong ner ner ;) Sounds about the same as some of the
arguements that go on around here (: Nah, seriously, Canon used to make
some bellows I think. They could be fun to play around with. I wonder if
anyone makes them now...

Scott.

[Scott Coutts]

Ken Chandler wrote:

> "Ken Chandler" wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>>
>>1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
>>or
>>2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>
>
> Replying to my own post ... oh dear.
>
> I was Googling information regarding how working distance/min focus distance
> is affected when using the tubes and came across this site:
>
> <http://www.thkphoto.com/products/kenko/slrc-04.html>
>

Ha! How about that. Looks like mine are Kenko ones too, but they dont
have it written on them anywhere. But they look exactly the same as the
ones in that picture.

>
> Those "sample" pics ... not likely to be based on reality unless that's a
> really small mountain (pebble?) or can you really focus that far off with
> the tubes?
>

No, I dont know what they're showing there. THe only thing I can come up
with is that they're photographing a picture. Because as soon as you put
the smallest ring on the camera, the max focussing distance is reduced
to a matter of centimetres.

>
> Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min focus
> distance?
>

They all reduce it down to a centimetres. This is what I posted about
the tubes from a previous thread:

With all three extensions on the [back of the] 50mm lens (a total of
extension 68mm) it gives approximately 1.5x magnification. That means an
object of about 1cm x 1.5cm will completely fill the frame.

At that magnification the focusing distance is very small as is the DOF!
Focusing distance not too bad for static objects - it's around about 5cm.

PS: You can use the extension tubes for any lens. The reason that the
50mm is good for this purpose is because:

- it has a fairly flat field, which becomes more important with
macro and very small DOF applications.
- it is very small, short and light. This is important if it's
on the end of three rings!)
- it is very sharp.
- it's very cheap.

[Scott Coutts]

Derek wrote:

> Hi Ken
>
> I have the EF Kenko set, and the build quality is fine, so not sure what was
> up with Brenton's. Most Pro's I know use the Kenko's, as their are no
> optics, who really cares what brand they are.
>

Yeah, maybe you got a dud set, brenton! I've discovered with a little
closer examination that mine are 'triplus' brand... but I've also
discovered that Kenko makes them for most brands and apparently they
were also making Canons tubes at one stage.

>
> I have used exactly the setup you describe, Kenko Tubes with the 70-200L for
> a job did for a customer with a heap of keyrings & badges, the results were
> very good. The advantage of using the zoom, is you can control the working
> distance quite well inside a lighting cocoon where working distances are not
> easily changed.
>
> Adding longer or more tubes reduces the min focus distances, and increases
> magnification.
>
> I also have an EF50f2.5 Macro, which you can also add the tubes too for
> incredible magnification.
>

[Brenton]

Ken Chandler wrote:
> "Ken Chandler" wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>Wondering if anyone on the group has experience with either of these:
>>
>>1) Canon 77mm 500D - for use with a 70-200 2.8L IS
>>or
>>2) Kenko Extension Tube Set - for use with above lens or 50mm f/1.8 MkII
>
>
> Replying to my own post ... oh dear.
>
> I was Googling information regarding how working distance/min focus distance
> is affected when using the tubes and came across this site:
>
> <http://www.thkphoto.com/products/kenko/slrc-04.html>
>
> Those "sample" pics ... not likely to be based on reality unless that's a
> really small mountain (pebble?) or can you really focus that far off with
> the tubes?
>
> Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min focus
> distance?
>
> Thanks, KC
>
>

I love this quotes from that site you linked
<snip>
Please Note;

1. When using extension tubes the lens will not focus to infinity. The
focus range will be greatly limited to a very close focusing distance.
</snip>

Yet they give a picture of a mountain... this is impossible as you say

I just put my EF 25 on a 50m f1.5 on an EOS 3 body to try... furtherest
distance I could focus with the lens set at infinity was a whole 10cm
(the 50mm lens cap fills the frame) closest focus was about 5cm.
With my 28-135... I use the Zoom to focus and the focus to fine focus ..
if you know what I mean.
Benton

[Brenton]

Scott Coutts wrote:
>
>
> Derek wrote:
>
>> Hi Ken
>>
>> I have the EF Kenko set, and the build quality is fine, so not sure
>> what was
>> up with Brenton's. Most Pro's I know use the Kenko's, as their are no
>> optics, who really cares what brand they are.
>>
>
> Yeah, maybe you got a dud set, brenton! I've discovered with a little
> closer examination that mine are 'triplus' brand... but I've also
> discovered that Kenko makes them for most brands and apparently they
> were also making Canons tubes at one stage.


Probably... cause I could seriously see the metal contact pins right
through the extension tube... the was no middle to the tube.

BRenton

[Ken Chandler]

"Derek" wrote:
> "Ken Chandler" wrote:

[snips]

> "> Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min
focus
> > distance?

> I have used exactly the setup you describe, Kenko Tubes with the 70-200L
for
> a job did for a customer with a heap of keyrings & badges, the results
were
> very good.

Thanks heaps for the info.

I just sent you an email (on a different subject entirely), it bounced with
"exceeds mailbox storage quota"

If you wouldn't mind making contact:

news (at) kenchandler (dot) com

KC

[Ken Chandler]

"Scott Coutts" wrote:
> Ken Chandler wrote:

[snips]

> > Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min
focus
> > distance?

> They all reduce it down to a centimetres. This is what I posted about
> the tubes from a previous thread:
>
> With all three extensions on the [back of the] 50mm lens (a total of
> extension 68mm) it gives approximately 1.5x magnification. That means an
> object of about 1cm x 1.5cm will completely fill the frame.
>
> At that magnification the focusing distance is very small as is the DOF!
> Focusing distance not too bad for static objects - it's around about 5cm.
>
> PS: You can use the extension tubes for any lens. The reason that the
> 50mm is good for this purpose is because:
>
> - it has a fairly flat field, which becomes more important with
> macro and very small DOF applications.
> - it is very small, short and light. This is important if it's
> on the end of three rings!)
> - it is very sharp.
> - it's very cheap.

Thanks for the detailed info. Much appreciated.

KC

[Ken Chandler]

"Brenton" <neuschulz@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Ken Chandler wrote:

> > Can someone please advise how the different length tubes affect min
focus
> > distance?

> I just put my EF 25 on a 50m f1.5 on an EOS 3 body to try... furtherest
> distance I could focus with the lens set at infinity was a whole 10cm
> (the 50mm lens cap fills the frame) closest focus was about 5cm.
> With my 28-135... I use the Zoom to focus and the focus to fine focus ..
> if you know what I mean.
> Benton

Thanks for the info Brenton, much appreciated.

KC