Squeezing a bit more from the 100 macro on a 5D...

Following is a question I posted to Cannon e-mail Support this previous evening:

"I'm using the Canon 100mm macro lens on a

5D with good results. However, I'm interested in getting more

magnification for shooting smaller subjects without purchasing another

macro lens. Would any of the following be advisable options:

1) 500D close-up lens

2) EF 25II extension tube

3) EF 25II extension tube in combination with EF 1.4X extender"

Following is their response:

"Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon

customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your EOS 5D.

We don't recommend that you use the Extenders with the Extension tubes.

They weren't designed to be used together. Your working distance will

be incredibly small. I recommend that you use the Extension Tube EF 25

II.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact

us again if you have any other questions or concerns regarding your EOS

5D.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Erik

Technical Support Representative

Special Note: Certain issues are very difficult to resolve via email.

If your question remains unanswered after you have received this email,

you may call our special toll-free number for email customers with

unresolved issues and speak to a technician by dialing 1-866-261-9362,

Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight ET, and Saturday 10:00 a.m. -

8:00 p.m. ET (excluding holidays).

If you prefer to continue to communicate via email, reply to this

message and we will respond as quickly as possible."

I've spent substantial quantity of time researching this subject http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029, here on Wetpixel, etc.

I was slightly surprised at their suggestion as I concluded from my research that the later combination would be a viable solution. Interestingly I saw a very impressive gallery of topside shots taken with the EF 25II extension tube in combination with EF 1.4X extender on a 5D. Possibly best to go with Extension Tube EF 25 II ? Other than going with third party products or another lens as needed, does anyone have any concluding input regarding this subject?

I frequently use a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with the 100mm macro and often add the 500D. The camera still does a good job of autofocus with these combinations. Some sample shots were posted here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15035&hl=

The first two and the last were shot with a 1.4x and the 100mm.

If you look up the spec of Canon's own 1.4x ExtenderII you will see that it is designed for lenses of 135mm focal length and longer. Canon are unlikely to suggest its use on lenses for which their engineers did not design it. Nor are they likely to recommend another manufacturer's convertor - which might explain their somewhat negative response.

Herbko's comments bear out the usefulness of this forum on Wetpixel - someone who has actually got first hand experience and is willing to share it can be extremely useful indeed. As I'm wondering about a 1.4x I'll see if I can persuade my local (very helpful) dealer to loan me a Canon version to see if it does work at all! If he will then I'll try to post at some point.

Those are some sweet shots Herb! Thanks much for your input and mentioning those four were taken with the 5D/100 macro/Tamron 1.4x combination.

Paul, I could be wrong and stand to be corrected, but I read on another forum whereby the Canon 1.4x won’t physically work/fit with the 100 macro lens without also using the 25II Extension Tube. Please let us know if it works and any thoughts you have. I’m anxious to know what you find out.

(I’ve had first-had past experience with error 99 messages when using third party manufacturer products on Canon bodies, so on that note alone I can understand why Canon doesn’t promote other manufacturer products.)

(I’ve had first-had past experience with error 99 messages when using third party manufacturer products on Canon bodies, so on that note alone I can understand why Canon doesn’t promote other manufacturer products.)

I've only had one Error 99 incident, and that was the 100mm only on my 300D. The Tamron 1.4x has had no problems so far. Best $100 I've ever spent on glass.

I use the Tamron 1.4x also and it works great - I have the white one (they make two different versions).

"Paul, I could be wrong and stand to be corrected, but I read on another forum whereby the Canon 1.4x won’t physically work/fit with the 100 macro lens without also using the 25II Extension Tube. Please let us know if it works and any thoughts you have. I’m anxious to know what you find out. "

This may well be correct. If so then I can well appreciate that the optical quality may well be compromised by using it in this way. I'll see if I can try it and report back here.

You might consider a wet diopter like the 'Woody's Diopter.' Then you have the option to take it off (underwater) if it's too much for your subject.

With the 100mm at maximum magnification your lens port is already pretty close to the subject. Using extension tubes or diopters to get even closer sounds less attractive to me than using a 1.4x converter. You would need the 250D canon diopter (+4 diopter) or a 25mm extension tube to get to 1.4x magnification. For the tube your working range (distance from lens where focus can be obtained) is reduced to 10.1 to 42.6 cm, don't know exactly for the diopter but I expect something like 10 to 35 cm. With the converter you can still focus from infinity to the minimal focus distance of the lens itself (13-14cm I seem to remember).

The easiest alternative solution is to crop your image by a factor of 1.4. I know this is cheating but depending on how big you want to print the shot it may not matter if you're working with a 12 or 6Mpixel image. Cropping does not lead to loss of light of DOF, no need to buy and carry extra gear, and during cropping you have a bit of extra freedom to fine-tune the composition. The main benefit of true optical magnification is that it can give higher resolution. But this only works if the higher resolution is actually in the image and if you print or display the image so that the highest resolution features are large enough to be picked up by the human eye.

The optical resolution depends on the distance to the subject and the diameter of the lens opening and thus decreases as the diaphragm is closed. If you shoot at F32 then the resolution of your digital image is limited by the lens, not the sensor, and adding a converter won't give you any extra detail. If you set the aperture to where the image just becomes diffraction-limited (something in the f16-22 range I expect) then the optical resolution of the image is about the same as the highest resolution that can be captured by the sensor. Again, adding a converter won't give better resolution. However, if you open the diaphragm a bit further so that the image resolution becomes limited by the sensor, then adding the converter will help because making the image 1.4x as big is the same as making the pixels 1.4 times as small.

In some sense, the best way is to use a 20D or the new 400Txi, because they cram more pixels per square millimeter and can thus resolve smaller features. If you want to exchange your 5D for my 20D then just let me know

APS-C sensors are not always better for macro though. The 1DsMKII has about the same pixel size as the 20D on a full frame sensor. It is easy to think that the smaller sensor has gained advantage "by the focal length multiplier effect", but really it has just lost field-of-view.

Bart

Damn Bart.... crop he says..

cheater!!!! just like the Oilers hahahahah never trust those edmonton people....

Hi Mike,

Yep it's a poor city if your ego depends on the local hockey club, which is great I must say, and having "the biggest mall in the world" (including a replica of the Santa Maria and a bunch of submarines sailing in a fake ocean where you can dive among fake treasure chests and rocks ). However, it really is a great city to live in and my biggest issue is the lack of convenient flights to anything that smells like "good diving". Having said that, I have yet to check out the BC coast and hope to do so soon.

I already have an extention tube and I'm sure I'll be getting myself diopters and converters as well. I just wanted to play devils advocate by saying that magnification is not the whole story. The easiest way to magnify is not even to crop. It is to print it on a bigger sheet of paper. The thing is it only works if the extra detail is actually in the image. So pursue resolution and use magnification as a trick to get it, not just for the sake of "filling the frame".

Bart

Paul, I could be wrong and stand to be corrected, but I read on another forum whereby the Canon 1.4x won’t physically work/fit with the 100 macro lens without also using the 25II Extension Tube. Please let us know if it works and any thoughts you have. I’m anxious to know what you find out.

I was evaluating the same setup. Canon 1.4x will work only with Canon L-type lenses. I am thinking about getting Kenko converter for my 100 macro.

The Kenko converter is a good way to go.

FWIW, I tried the Canon 1.4x converter w/ my Sigma 150mm lens. The converter does not fit on this lens either, despite the long focal length and recessed rear element. The elements still touch the Canon converter.

Cheers

James

I own the Canon100 macro (latest) and the Sigma 50 (latest). I also have a Canon 1.4 TC Mk2. I can confirm the front element of the TC projects too far forward and will not mate with either of these lenses.

Are the Tamron Pro and Kenko Pro converters "identical?" Here's link to an interesting read:

http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm

Yes, made by the same company.

Cheers

James

FWIW, I tried using the Canon 100mm macro lens with a Kenko 2X TC, and was surprised to discover that it would still AF! As long as you're shooting in pretty good light, that's another option to consider.

FWIW, I tried using the Canon 100mm macro lens with a Kenko 2X TC, and was surprised to discover that it would still AF!