Macro question

So, I have a Canon 24-105 that I use on my 50D for most of my work. I would like to start experimenting with macro but am not sure that I want to invest in a dedicated macro lens like the 100mm. In the past I used a set of extension tubes with my Canon film camera and zoom lens and got good results (good enough for a book and about 150 magazine articles). So the question is how good would the results be if I use a Canon EF25 II extension tube with the 24-105 lens? I know that the 50D at 15 megapixels is a much more demanding camera but the 24-105 has pretty good glass. Finally, how does the Canon compare with the Kenko tubes? Thanks--Larry

Hey Larry, your lens with extention tubes will produce great images, the problem with tubes is, if you're working in a variety of working distances you have to constantly change the tubes, adding and subtracting as you move in and out, as each one works only within a certain distance. With the macro lens you will be albe to shoot at all distance saving you the hassle of changing tubes. The other problem is as you change tubes alot you have to deal with dust in the camera. last you will lose some speed with the tubes, but i don't find that a big issue as you are usually shooting on a tripod or you can shoot at a higher ISO to compensate.

As long at the extension tubes you buy are made of metal rather than plastic , the brand is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in the tubes to affect picture quality or chips in the tubes that may become outdated. Kenko are a good third party alternative.

Personally, I don't like working with extension tubes on zooms because they tend to be a pain to work with, for the reasons Mike outlines above.

I agree while tubes can give great results nothing beats using a true macro lens. If you are unsure if you want to invest in a 100mm 2.8 try renting one for a little while.
Tubes: go for a set of Kenko tubes, you can get all 3 sizes for the price of 1 Canon.

Larry: I have both a 100 and 200mm macro so I'm thoroughly spoiled and covered but I do on occasion use tubes on my 300 f2.8. I have the Kenkos and they work fine. I find using tubes on a zoom aggravating but it sounds like you've done it for some time so why not? Since there's no glass there won't be any image degradation, just the aforementioned light loss requiring longer shutter speeds. Good luck and be sure to post some of your work in Flora. >=))>

I have a Canon 2 element close up lens (500D) for sale in classifieds. That's one inexpensive way to experiment with macro.

A prime macro will offer significantly better resolution and bokeh compared to the zoom.

Still making up my mind, and waiting for someone to list a Canon 100mm macro or extension tubes in the classified section.

To get back to the great comments above and from what I have read about bokeh, I am assuming that the 100mm macro will have an aperture that is more circular than the 24-105 and therefore will give a more circular bokeh, whereas the 24-105 aperture will be more angular and therefore will not have as pleasant a bokeh?

As for the extension tubes, what is the difference between the Canon EF 12/25 and the Kenko tubes from a functional standpoint? Obviously there are no optical differences but what about operational? Thanks