On 4/23/2016 7:00 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Sorry, bad link on the first go...
I have a set of these with metal mounts
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/Meike-Auto-Focus-AF-Extension-Tube-for-Micro-M4-3-Panasonic-GX7-GF6-Olympus-OM-/360871801649?hash=item5405a2b331:g:x8cAAOxy3zNShcIF>
as opposed to these which are all plastic
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/Meike-Auto-Focus-Automatic-Macro-Extension-Tube-10-16mm-Olympus-Micro-4-3-Camera-/271844929948?hash=item3f4b38719c:g:KbYAAOSwNSxVNc2T>
I have the plastic ones. They work well. I'm just concerned about the load of this long, heavy new lens. I just got this
set of three.
<http://www.amazon.com/Movo-Extension-Mirrorless-Compatible-Blackmagic/dp/B00GSCJU3M?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00>
At first, I was afraid the mounts looked like chrome plated plastic, and sounded like it when tapped. But when I took
off one mount and scratched the back, hidden surface, it is metal deeper than a plating.
I like having the 21 mm, as stacking 10 + 16 = 26 mm brings way too many electrical contacts into play, and can take
some juggling/cleaning to get full automation.
They're the same part number except the metal mount has an "A" suffix and the plastic
mount has a "B" suffix.
Take all of this with a grain of salt since I don't use the 75-300 very much
(little field experience)
Whereas I've have used it very extensively, over 11,000 shots, essentially the same number as my other go-to lens, the
12-50, which I've had a bit longer.
and have never used the extension tubes other than trying them out in the house
with a few different lenses.
Anyhow, I mounted the 75-300 onto both tubes together (10mm + 16mm) and tried using the lens in the house at both 75
and 300. The tubes give a very slight rotary motion which allows the assembly to rotate perhaps 1/2mm on the mount
circumference but that's all. There doesn't seem to be any looseness that would produce a gap between lens mount and
camera. I think the mount flanges are some sort of hard aluminum (certainly not stainless steel) but they seem
reasonably sturdy.
The gap I mentioned is very small, and can only be seen from the side, with light behind, at the top of the meeting of
tube and camera body and or meeting of lens and tube. It is a result of the weight of the lens, esp. when extended,
compressing the spring behind the top 'ear' inside the female mounts on the body and/or adapter.
My only other comment is that they'd be horribly difficult to use in the field.
Yes - and No.
At a distance of about 6 feet or so with the lens at 300 mm and both tubes mounted the total range of focus was about
2-3". At first I thought there was something amiss about the tubes using autofocus until I thought a bit about what I
was actually trying to do and realized how restrictive the focusing range would be. It took a lot of trial and error
to find the focusing range. A flutterby shooter I am not. :-)
No - It seems you are just not much of an experienced small thing C-U/macro shooter. For someone who does this stuff all
the time, the narrow focusing range and shallow DoF are familiar problems to work with. Here's a small selection from
hand held use in my garden. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=4534> They weren't particularly hard to take,
and the great working distance was a relief from working with 12-50 in Macro Mode or the 60/2.8 Macro. Fewer problems
with inadvertently bumping the subjects, shadows, etc., as well as not needing to get down on the ground for this subject.
Yes - One of my problems as a photographer out in nature has always been that so much of the time I'm walking with
someone else(s). That and a possible bit of impatience. That's my preference; not much of a lone photographer away from
home. So I can't spend a lot of time juggling gear for various shots. And I'm eclectic, taking a flower 1/8" across one
moment, something miles away at full tele the next and a panorama the next. My last little three mi. round trip in the
desert, earlier this month, I only just got to the palm oasis up at the end as Carol and our friend Sally were heading
back after waiting some time for me. So many thing to photograph!
In any case, I really appreciate solutions that involve the minimum of fussing and juggling with gear. Extension tubes
work well with the 75-300 when I try them out. But out in the woods, etc., experience shows that I very seldom actually
do the lens/tube/body juggling thing. And now I really don't want to drop the 100-400 while juggling it, a camera body
and extension tube, out where there's no place to lay anything down.
So I'm also exploring the C-U lens approach. John Shaw writes that he uses it
with great success, many images sold.
Tele Macro Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|