First Auto Macro Tube for XCD lenses are available

[Chriscove]

@FirstLights

I looked at that review on Amazon. It's confusing because the reviews are for all the adapters, but that review is specifically about the Fotodiox Pro EF/EF-S to XCD adapter not working on the X1D II.
See where under the review date it states "Size:"

Sean

I have tested the Fotodiox ET on the X1D Mk2 and they work perfectly with AF and aperture control. The AF is slow as it was on the Mk1.

[sanglier]

+1

[SeanRL]

Interested in using tube(s) with the XCD 90mm lens and the new focus bracketing capability.

The close focusing distance should be about 8.7 inches with the 48mm tube on the XCD 90mm.

Does anyone have more images they can post?

Thanks,
Sean

[Monsieur Paparazzo]

I would like to use a 20mm tube with the XCD90 lens for closeUp portraiture.
(I'm interested in Deep of field and getting closer to the subject - only 0,7m whit the XCD90)

What is the minimum and maximum distance object to image plane with this combo ?

Thanks !
Régis

http://monsieurpaparazzo.com

[Mr-Anderson]

Got my 20mm today.
Tested it fast and seems very good.
The only thing that bother me a little, that is a little gap between the tube and the house.
Every XCD lens has the rubber seal.

[SeanRL]

Has anyone worked out the close focusing distance of the 20mm and the 48mm tubes on the XCD 90mm?

Thanks in advance,
Sean

[stefantotev]

Which one do you think will work better with the XCD 135 - the 20 or 48?

[Photon42]

The 20mm is useful for the 65 and particularly for my 100mm to get quite a bit closer. 48mm seems long to me. Depends on what you want. There is a reason why lenses have a certain close focus limitation. You can as well use an Apochromat. May be the better option.

[pss]

Interested in using tube(s) with the XCD 90mm lens and the new focus bracketing capability.

The close focusing distance should be about 8.7 inches with the 48mm tube on the XCD 90mm.

Does anyone have more images they can post?

Thanks,
Sean

there is focus bracket available now with the x1DII?

[JCM-Photos]

Which one do you think will work better with the XCD 135 - the 20 or 48?

Before mounting a short extension tube on the XCD135 you have also to consider the use of the dedicated X1.7 extender that brings a nice magnification benefit.

[SeanRL]

there is focus bracket available now with the x1DII?
[/quote]

Not for Mk II (as of May 2020).

[Vieri]

I wish somebody explains me a technical point: Is it really true that extension tubes cause no IQ degradation? My understanding is  that macro lens costs more than a regular prime in part due to a tightly controlled flat field. How good would even XCD 90 look like from up close? Also how close can one get with 48mm tube? With 20mm? Is there any reason to choose 20 over 48mm other than smaller light loss?

In short, the answer is no, it is not true in practice. I have two macro tube for the X1D, 20mm and 40mm, and they both degree image quality to a degree. The image's center is fine, but the corners show issues such as sharpness loss and severe CA. Personally, I would stick with the 20mm tube, which suffer less of these issues, and I would only use that when critical IQ is not fundamental. For everything else, a dedicated macro lens is the way to go, IMHO. Hope this helps, best regards

Vieri

[sanglier]

I confirm that the Macro tube sort well, but it is for me a backup solution when I do not have a macro lens on hand, whose qualitative results are largely superior, but I still made good shot  with this tube.
Regards.

[JCM-Photos]

I rented a day long the XCD 120 Macro and tried it on different subjects.
It is an extraordinary sharp lens for general use as well as macro.

In general use I found the 120 AF very slow and problematic in low light, even when using the focusing limiter.

If you do a lot of short distance and macro work the XCD 120 is the best choice.

If you do much more portraits or landscapes the XCD 135 is better suited.

[Photon42]

I wish somebody explains me a technical point: Is it really true that extension tubes cause no IQ degradation? My understanding is  that macro lens costs more than a regular prime in part due to a tightly controlled flat field. How good would even XCD 90 look like from up close? Also how close can one get with 48mm tube? With 20mm? Is there any reason to choose 20 over 48mm other than smaller light loss?

The way to think about it is that manufacturers build their lenses to particular specifications. Image quality is never completely the same at all distances. A more prominent example may be the earlier Fujifilm X cameras predating the V model, where the internet is full of complaints, how soft the lens is, when it focuses close-up.

Of course you can compensate for this effect in some cases by closing down the aperture. This is what Leica has done with their 23mm for their APSC camera. if you focus close, it automatically closes the aperture from f/2 to f/2.8. They do not want to have complaints about image quality ...

A generic close-up lens on the other side was never part of of the lens manufacturer's optical formula for the particular lens. I think Leica manufactures an Achromat for its 180mm S lens, specifically. But no extension tube.

The answer is as always: it depends. With some lenses you get away with a moderate extension tube, especially if you close down the  aperture. With others a moderate Achromat is a better solution. After all, perfection never comes with ease of use. For best quality, use the macro lens.

For the odd flower photo, you probably have more trouble keeping everything in focus outside with wind etc. And adding a proper macro lens and lugging that around for the possible 1-2 photos a day may not make sense, so a good close-up lens may be useful and easy to put into action. Lens does not need to be taken off as well.