Should I use a teleconverter on a 100mm macro lens for more than 1:1 magnification?
Asked 5/2/2011
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m using a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens and tried a Kenko teleconverter to get extra magnification. It did increase magnification, but I wasn’t fully satisfied because I lost light and image quality. Is a teleconverter a good way to go beyond 1:1 with a dedicated macro lens, or would extension tubes or another approach be better? I mainly want a cost-effective way to achieve higher magnification.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
3
One or more extension tubes (or a bellows) will get you greater magnifications without introducing extra optical elements that may degrade image quality. You will always pay for magnification with light loss, though. Whether you use a teleconverter or simply increase the lens extension, you are reducing the effective aperture of the lens, while at the same time reducing the apparent depth of field, which necessitates further reducing the real aperture.
That's one of the reasons why macro photography often involves flash mounted on the lens, either as independent light sources or as a ring. Often, the "available light" would require shutter speeds that are either too long for the subject (especially when shooting living things) or that are long enough to result in significant sensor noise.
Originally by user2719. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2719
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A teleconverter can increase magnification on a macro lens, but it’s usually not the best value if your goal is more than 1:1. It adds extra optical elements, which can reduce image quality, and you still lose light.
Extension tubes or a bellows are generally the better option for higher macro magnification because they don’t add glass, so they avoid that particular image-quality penalty. However, any method of increasing magnification also reduces the effective aperture, so light loss is unavoidable.
At higher magnifications, apparent depth of field becomes very shallow, so macro shooters often stop down further and then need even more light. That’s why dedicated macro lighting—such as a ring light or small flash setup—is commonly used, especially for live subjects where long shutter speeds are a problem.
So: yes, a teleconverter works, but if you’re unhappy with the image-quality tradeoff, extension tubes are usually the cheaper and better route for going beyond 1:1.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can you combine extension tubes and a close-up lens for more magnification on a Canon 100mm macro?
At the same magnification, is macro depth of field the same with a macro lens, extension tubes, diopters, or a reversed lens?
Are third-party extension tubes a good alternative to Canon's for macro work?
Will Canon EF/EF-S extension tubes work on a Canon EOS 700D with a Sigma 18-250mm lens?
Will an extension tube increase magnification on a 105mm macro lens?