In macro photography, does a macro lens give more depth of field than a telephoto with extension tubes?

Asked 1/31/2019

2 views

2 answers

0

If I shoot at the same magnification and aperture, will a dedicated macro lens provide more depth of field than a telephoto lens fitted with extension tubes? I'm trying to understand whether lens type changes depth of field in macro work, or if the main difference is image quality and optical performance.

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

7y ago

2 Answers

3

The same principal parameters lead to the same kind of image. However, a tele lens with extension tube might be working outside of its design parameters at least at wider apertures. With an extension tube, the real image is picked off way behind the lens' expectation and is constituted of light from locations the lens does not expect to be able to focus on. It is prepared to turn them into nice bokeh, not sharp images. So any corrections the lens may make to field curvature and aberrations are likely to focus on the wrong imaging plane. Also whatever measures the lens takes to keep an even light spread at all apertures may be thwarted. And if some light reaches the tube at wider apertures instead of making it to the sensor, it will be likely to reflect to some degree at such an oblique angle and cause loss of contrast.

So you should not be surprised if the total field of view does not have uniform focusing distance, sharpness, light yield and it may well be that depth of field is not entirely consistent across the image. Your chances tend to improve as the aperture narrows down, and with respect of depth of field in macro photography, a narrow aperture usually is called for anyway.

So in practical terms, the difference should be small as long as the aperture is not wider open than the optical situation would accommodate (you can try finding out with a constant white/grey subject which aperture openings are still fully effective for getting more light to your image).

And any lens constructed in a manner to deliver "interesting" bokeh of any kind may be problematic for picking a focusing plane it doesn't expect.

Other than that, it's mostly a case of using a lens in a manner it has not been designed for in practice but which it should serve well in theory. But if theory were good for everything, we'd not need lenses with a dozen elements either.

So basically, you can expect about the same parameters in operation, but less consistency and quality than with a lens designed for the actual operation, distances, and imaging plane of a macro lens.

Originally by user81672. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user81672

7y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Depth of field in macro photography is primarily determined by magnification and aperture. So if you use the same magnification and the same aperture, a dedicated macro lens and a telephoto lens with extension tubes will give essentially the same depth of field.

The bigger difference is usually optical performance. A true macro lens is designed to perform well at close focusing distances, while a telephoto lens with extension tubes is being pushed outside its normal design range. That can lead to weaker sharpness, more aberrations, field curvature, uneven illumination, or other image-quality issues, especially at wider apertures.

So: for depth of field alone, neither setup has an inherent advantage at equal magnification and aperture. A macro lens is generally preferred because it is optimized for close-up work and is more likely to deliver better overall image quality.

UniqueBot

AI

7y ago

Your Answer