Are Macro Lenses Better Than Macro Tubes? A Comprehensive Analysis

When it comes to capturing detailed macro images, the choice between macro lenses and macro tubes can be a significant one. Both options have their advantages and trade-offs. In this article, we will explore the differences between the two, their respective advantages and disadvantages, and when one might be preferable to the other.

General Comparison

Macro tubes are often preferred due to their lower cost and ability to achieve higher magnification ratios by focusing very close to the subject. However, for professional use or specialized macro photography, macro lenses are generally considered the better choice. This is because macro lenses offer built-in advantages such as automatic focus, optical stabilization, and consistent performance across the entire focused range.

Macro Lenses vs. Macro Tubes

Note that using a macro lens is typically seen as "better" than using macro tubes for dedicated macro photography. However, everyone's needs and preferences are different. Some photographers might prefer the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of macro tubes, especially when they’re looking for an alternative to more expensive macro lenses.

Experimenting with Extention Tubes

One way to compare the performance of macro lenses versus macro tubes is to perform a side-by-side test. For instance, my SET of automatic extension tubes matched with my Sony A6000 series cameras has been incredibly reliable, making them a great backup when I need to get closer to my subject than my native lenses can achieve.

Test Setup

Left: Image taken with a Meiki 85mm dedicated macro lens manually focused on the lower edge of the big hole in the leaf.
Right: Image duplicated as closely as possible using an 18-105mm zoom lens and both 10mm and 16mm Neewer tubes.

From a glance, the full-frame pictures from both setups appear very similar. Yet, upon closer inspection, there are subtle differences in sharpness. At 5 magnification of both images, the picture with the dedicated macro lens is more sharply defined. By 75x magnification, the right image, taken with the zoom lens and tubes, begins to show a degree of unsharpness.

Manual vs. Automatic Extension Tubes

Automatic extension tubes can simplify the process of achieving the correct exposure and can be a cost-effective alternative to a dedicated macro lens. My set of Neewer 10mm and 16mm extension tubes cost around $40 and work seamlessly with my camera.

It is important to note that while dedicated macro lenses are wire sharper, they offer the ability to focus from 1:1 to infinity, which is a significant advantage. Furthermore, modern macro lenses often feature built-in autofocus, optical stabilization, and other advanced features that make them a preferred choice for many photographers.

Historical Perspective

In the past, photographers with tiny-sensor compacts and built-in close-up capabilities often found this feature sufficient for their needs. However, as technology evolved, the limitations of these built-in features became evident. It’s only natural for photographers to seek more capabilities and the ability to capture higher-quality macro images with dedicated macro lenses and extension tubes.

Conclusion

The decision between a macro lens and macro tubes ultimately depends on an individual’s needs and budget. For those seeking the best possible image quality and flexibility, a dedicated macro lens is often the better choice. However, for those looking for a cost-effective and flexible solution, macro tubes and extension tubes can be a perfectly adequate alternative. As a photographer, the ability to adapt and use the tools that work best for your situation is key.

Key Takeaways:
Macro lenses offer superior focus from 1:1 to infinity. Macro tubes are cost-effective but may sacrifice some sharpness and features. Automatic extension tubes simplify the exposure process.

Ultimately, “good enough” is defined by the photographer's specific needs and the quality they are willing to accept.