Macro add-on lens..

[Jack2013]

Hi all,

I purchased one of those macro lenses that screw onto your main lens a while back and had a question for you.

Would the lens work better attached to my 18-55mm kit lens or 55-200mm telephoto lens?

I'm guessing for close up work it would be better on the kit lens but then I thought about the additional zoom/magnification of the telephoto lens..

I look forward to your replies!

Cheers

Jack

 

[480sparky]

Depends on what you mean by 'better'.

Image quality? Magnification ratio?

 

[Jack2013]

Ha ha, fair play Sparky, probably the worst word I could have used..

I guess the best of both worlds, if that exists?

 

[480sparky]

Try it on both as judge for yourself.

I would suspect the IQ would be slightly better on the 18-55, but a higher magnification on the 55-200. But I don't know which lenses exactly you have.

 

[Jack2013]

Funny you should say that, as it was the first thing I did...

I couldn't notice much of a difference which is why I'm asking the photo forum community.

 

[Overread]

Macro addon-lenses/diopters/macro converters/ etc... (they've a slew of names).

These work by reducing the focusing distance of the lens, both its minimum and maximum. As a result you can use them to focus closer than normal and thus get an increased magnification of the subject; whilst at the same time you lose infinity focusing and might only be able to focus the lens a few inches away (how far varies from lens to lens and the power of the attachment).

The attachments normally have a diopter rating which is its "power" of magnification increase. The higher the number the greater the increase in magnification (ergo the closer you can focus).

There are also two basic kinds on the market - single element and multi element. The former are typically very cheap and whilst they work they will generally deliver a very low grade of image quality (even when mounted on very good lenses). The latter are a different ballgame and some can be very high grade optics which can hardly affect image quality.


It's important to note that they will give more magnification when mounted onto longer focal length lenses. As a result it will increase the magnification of your 200mm lens more than a 55mm. However this magnification increase is added to the base magnification capacity of the lens itself (at that set focal range for lenses with variable focal distances).
As a result a lens with a shorter focal length ,but a greater native magnification can still deliver a higher magnification when mounted with the same attachment, than a longer focal length lens with a lesser native magnification.



As a result the greater magnification would in theory come from the 200mm, however that is only if the combined magnification of lens and attachment is going to exceed what the shorter lens can give you. Best thing is to try them out side by side and see- there is some maths to work out the exact numbers, but I don't have a link nor understanding of the maths to state it.



If you want examples Raynox and Canon both make high grade attachments. Canon has the 250D and 500D (the former being the more powerful) whilst Raynox has a whole range of options on the market of various powers.

 

[Jack2013]

Macro addon-lenses/diopters/macro converters/ etc... (they've a slew of names).

These work by reducing the focusing distance of the lens, both its minimum and maximum. As a result you can use them to focus closer than normal and thus get an increased magnification of the subject; whilst at the same time you lose infinity focusing and might only be able to focus the lens a few inches away (how far varies from lens to lens and the power of the attachment).

The attachments normally have a diopter rating which is its "power" of magnification increase. The higher the number the greater the increase in magnification (ergo the closer you can focus).

There are also two basic kinds on the market - single element and multi element. The former are typically very cheap and whilst they work they will generally deliver a very low grade of image quality (even when mounted on very good lenses). The latter are a different ballgame and some can be very high grade optics which can hardly affect image quality.


It's important to note that they will give more magnification when mounted onto longer focal length lenses. As a result it will increase the magnification of your 200mm lens more than a 55mm. However this magnification increase is added to the base magnification capacity of the lens itself (at that set focal range for lenses with variable focal distances).
As a result a lens with a shorter focal length ,but a greater native magnification can still deliver a higher magnification when mounted with the same attachment, than a longer focal length lens with a lesser native magnification.



As a result the greater magnification would in theory come from the 200mm, however that is only if the combined magnification of lens and attachment is going to exceed what the shorter lens can give you. Best thing is to try them out side by side and see- there is some maths to work out the exact numbers, but I don't have a link nor understanding of the maths to state it.



If you want examples Raynox and Canon both make high grade attachments. Canon has the 250D and 500D (the former being the more powerful) whilst Raynox has a whole range of options on the market of various powers.

Hi Overread,

thanks you so much for the highly informative post, it's exactly what I was looking for!

Much appreciated

Jack

 

[bratkinson]

If your macro 'screw on' cost less than, about, $25 (US), you're better off tossing it into the trash can and buying one or more extension tubes for your camera. I tried one of those cheapie screw ons (macro and tele for $45 or so on ebay) and my camera could not focus. While unscrewing the first one, it disassembled and the lenses fell to the floor. I put them both in the trash.

As far as extension tubes, they are nothing more than a hollow tube with appropriate mounts and contacts for your lens and camera and goes between the camera and the lens. By moving the lens away from the camera, the projected image from the rear of the lens is larger, thereby magnifying the image.

 

[Overread]

bratkinson - even dedicated macro lenses can find it very hard to focus at macro distances, which is why much of macro photography is done with manual focusing. So difficulty at focusing isn't the only measure to judge quality by for these attachments.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Yup. Try a Canon 65mm MP-E sometime and you'll understand what Overread is talking about.