Generic Fuji Extension Tubes

20160429 090842 DSCF2319 XE2_DCE.jpg

To expand my options in my closeup photography, I decided to get some extension tubes (adapters with no optics that go between your lens and camera body and reduce the minimum (and maximum) focus distance).

I opted for extension tubes over a macro reverse adapter (a simple adapter that mounts your lens in reverse), because:

  • I did this over 25 years ago in high school by duct taping the lens backwards and didn’t like the effect (too distorted)
  • Extension tubes work with all your lenses. Macro reverse adapters fit specific lens filter sizes, so either multiple adapters or multiple filter size adapters would be needed.
  • The back of your lens becomes the front, and I didn’t like the idea of the internal elements being exposed to nature if I ended up using this outside especially since the back could be millimeters from flowers, bugs and dirt.

Some extension tubes have contacts to maintain autofocus and data and some do not.Since Fuji lenses are fly-by-wire and require power to manually focus and change aperture, I wanted one with contacts.

Since I didn’t know how the images would turn out (I might not like the effect) and I didn’t know what size I wanted (Fuji makes two – 11mm and 16mm at almost $100 each), I decided to buy a pair of cheap, generic tubes, and boy am I glad that I got generics first! (More on this later.)

I got my generic tubes (10mm and 16mm) for under $30 for both on eBay. There are marketed as Neewer, but not labeled that way on the tubes.

Some warning:

I read somewhere online that some generics can damage contacts. I was extremely careful when testing these with my lenses and the pins on these tubes appear to do some minor damage, so if I end up using them with my Fuji lenses often, I will probably get the Fuji extension tube(s).

20160428 140748 IMG_0055 G15_DCE.jpg

However, the contacts on the generic tubes appear to be more easily damaged by either each other or the Fuji pins.

20160428 140720 IMG_0054 G15_DCE.jpg

Unlike the Fuji’s extension tubes which are the same high grade metal that they use on their lenses, these generics are plastic and cheap metal…

…so I would be extremely cautious if you are using these with heavy lenses. I, personally, don’t plan to use these with my heavy lenses (more on this later).

Impact on focal distance:

Fuji published very good details on how their 11mm and 16mm extension tubes impact their lenses in a nice PDF. It works on adapted lenses, too, since the impact is on focal length.

pic_01.gif

(This table doesn’t include when you stack extension tubes and what impact these tubes have on exposure — extension tubes increase the distance between lens and sensor and therefore reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor.)

But I’m a really hands on person, and this table really doesn’t give me an idea of how shooting big lenses with such close distances would be like. My only experience with distances so small (less than 1 inch) was with my Sony T900 and Canon G15 point-and-shoot cameras (which is fun to do).

If you look at the table, the wider the lens, the closer you can get with extension tubes, but would being under 2 inches away from the subject with a wide lens give me a better effect than being over 2 inches away with a telephoto lens? You be the judge!

230mm

Let’s start with my 50-230mm — first at 230mm (no extension, with 10mm, 16mm, then both 10+16mm):

20160426 184959 DSCF6086 XT1 50-230 at 230mm EX 4up_DCE.jpg

You will notice that there isn’t much difference.

50mm

Then at the wide end (50mm):

20160426 184931 DSCF6085 XT1 50-230 at 50mm EX 4up_DCE.jpg

Wow! What a difference! 230mm without extension tube and 50mm with 10mm extension look nearly the same — the difference is the lens distance from the subject. 3ft vs 7in.

55mm on my 18-55mm gives me a similar result (sorry for changing keyboards on you. This was my first test and I didn’t properly plan for needing more light as I stacked extension tubes – thus the added flashlight):

20160426 143739 DSCF2285 XE2 18-55 at 55 EX 4up_DCE.jpg

18mm

But what really makes you think is the 18-55 at 18mm.

20160426 143600 DSCF2281 XE2 18-55 at 18 EX 4up_DCE.jpg

I’m nearly on top of it with the 16mm, but with both 10mm and 16mm extension tubes stacked, I literally cannot get close enough to the subject to get it in focus (any closer and the flashlight would not light the subject). The bokeh balls are the dust on the lens!

The most magnification

For those of you curious about the maximum magnification you can get while balanced with practical distance, my informal tests show with both 10mm and 16mm tubes stacked you get the best somewhere between 35-40mm.

20160427 120017 IMG_0050 G15 and 40mm ESX10+16_DCE.jpg

Aperture

f/4.5 vs f/1.8 (Fuji 50-230 at 50mm vs old Nikon f/1.8)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The difference in the first shot is primarily the difference between lenses. The Fuji’s minimum distance is about 3ft, but the old Nikon lens is about 5-6 inches, but all goes out the window once you stick extension tubes on them.

Canon G15 f/1.8 (approx f/9.5 equiv.) vs Fuji f/4, Nikon f/4, Nikon f/1.8

20160426 190452 DSCF6094 XT1 50mms EX10+16 EX 4up_DCE.jpg

 

Observations

  • A tiny, light point-and-shoot is much easier to use to get a macro shot.
  • To get the same depth of field as G15 but with big lenses, apertures would need to be around f/8-16 and shutter speeds would go much slower than with tiny Canon G15. That’s because the physics of using a tiny G15 sensor also means getting wide depth of field performance at what seems like lower apertures.
  • Whatever quality the lens has prior to extension tubes appears to get exaggerated. The old Nikon lens really took on a halo/crescent moon bokeh and swirly/radial blur quality.
  • No dramatic benefit was made by moving up to an XF 50-140 f/2.8 lens, and the lens is too heavy to be supported by the plastic generic extension tube.
  • Contrast tends to soften and exposure tends to darken
  • Because of the very limited focal range (often less than a few inches to as small as a few millimeters), one lens and zoom-with-your-feet won’t cover all sizes of subjects.
  • Manual focus is easier than autofocus, so extension tubes with contacts are only useful if you want to record the focal length, but, unfortunately, the data won’t show that you used an extension tube.
  • So what does an old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 + Nikon>Fuji adapter + two extension tubes look like? Very long.

20160428 150412 DSCF6105 XT1_DCE.jpg

Conclusion:

Not-very-durable generic extension tube should be ok for occasional use with light lenses.

Artsy use: For me, this is a fun option for high-grain black & whites (see below). The incredibly shallow depth-of-field and exaggerated “imperfections” from using old manual lenses is distracting in color for me, but takes on an interesting quality in b/w.

This would have been great on my 50-230mm when I shot that water drop. The shots from less than an inch away were interesting, but the shot that I wanted required me to be several inches away, but none of my long lenses could get close enough (my 50-230mm can only get 3ft away). With the 10+16mm stacked, it is now about half that.

Practical use: If you want low ISOs, more subject in focus (smaller apertures)*, then tripod and/or more light is needed.

*Heavier lenses (with wider apertures) are therefore less useful.

 

More samples (old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 10mm extension)


How did I get that cover photo? It’s my office chair with some backlight from a desk lamp. I used my old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 on my Fuji X-E2.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s