Macro and Fisheye

MarkXS · Dec 25, 2009

ive been looking for some cheap alternatives to a macro and fisheye lens and found out about the macro and fisheye adaptors that are very inexpensive. im wondering if i should buy one of these to go on a lens i already have or should i just buy an actual macro or fisheye lens?

Like this Fisheye..

Or this "macro"

bcshort · Dec 25, 2009

There was quite a bit of discussion about macro lens alternatives here a month or so ago. Being a landscape photographer, I don't particularly spend all that much time in the world of macro, but for the odd photo where I want to get in close I have a filter kit.

Fun with Macros « Ben Short

The filters are fine for my needs. Someone rightly pointed out that while extension tubes are a bit more expensive, they are a bit more versatile and will generally provide a better quality photo.

If you are going to get "cheap" filters, be careful as you get what you pay for. Cheap filters will generally leave you disappointed with photos that have chromatic abberations, colour shift, and softer focus. Having been bitten, I tend to buy the most expensive filter I can afford.

Hope this helps.

TJ K · Dec 25, 2009

I have one of those 5 dollar extension macro tubes from Hong Kong and it's a fun little thing. Of course it's nothing serious but for 5 dollars why not right? As long as the subject isn't moving i.e. flowers in wind or bee's or something like that then you're good. You're shutter speed will be around 15 seconds if you don't have a lens with an aperture ring because it stops all the way down.
TJ

Dwig · Dec 25, 2009

Neither of the items linked to are particularly high quality. The "fisheye" is an afocal attachment (attaches to the front of another lens) rather than a complete lens. It works pretty much the way the fisheye door peephole viewers do for your eye. Its perhaps somewhat better quality than the common hardware store item, but not in the class of a real fisheye lens.

The "macro" is a simple +3 diopter closeup lens. These work and often deliver excellent image quality in the center of the image but rarely deliver good quality at the edges. They are easy to use and inexpensive. Higher quality close up lenses are made but generally run 10 times the price of the sample in the link. The better closeup lenses, when used with a lens in the focal length range that they are designed for, can deliver surprisingly good results.

jbylake · Dec 25, 2009

I'm assuming you are talking digital, correct? If you are talking film, you can find mint macro and fisheye lenses that are very inexpensive..

J.

Darkhunter139 · Dec 25, 2009

I just got a canon 500d close up lens and I am very impressed with it. Its not real cheap but its still only around $100 and it is very nice.

MarkXS · Dec 25, 2009

so bottomline, should i get the adaptor/extension tube or would it just be a waste of money?

Darkhunter139 · Dec 25, 2009

MarkXS said:
so bottomline, should i get the adaptor/filters or would it just be a waste of money?

The canon 500d is a lens attachment not sure why they call it a lens and not a filter...

This is the one I got, the bigger threaded ones are a little more expensive though, I think the 77mm is like $140

2821A002 Canon 52 Close-Up Lens 500D (for lenses 70mm TO 300mm)

This is the video that convinced me to get one, he talks about close up filters in the video as well

http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsop2009#p/u/8/U7rrEQxjHmA

Dwig · Dec 26, 2009

MarkXS said:
so bottomline, should i get the adaptor/extension tube or would it just be a waste of money?

Not until you get a firm clear idea what type of "macro" pictures you want to take.

If your idea of "macro" is "close-up" photography (subject roughly 1x1.5" to 4x6") then extension tubes would be a complete waste of money unless you plan on doing this type of work with a rather long (200mm and longer) lens. You wouldn't be able to focus far enough away with one of the common kit lenses to photograph something that large with even the thinnest extension tube. Closeup lenses, particularily the high quality ones like the Canon 500D mentioned in another post and its stronger sibling the 250D, would be the primary inexpensive choice for this type of work. A true "macro lens" would be the other good choice.

If your idea of "macro" is true "photomacrography" (subject roughly 0.75x1.0" and smaller) then a set of extension tubes would be the primary tool to consider.

Tubes and closeup lenses work rather differently. The strength of a closeup lens (usually marked in diopters but sometime in mm or cm focal length) controls the maximum working distance (subject to closeup lens) regardless of the focal length of the primary camera lens. A +2 diopter lens (500mm FL, like the Canon 500D) has a maximum working distance of 500mm/~20". The longer the FL of the primary camera lens the smaller the subject area photographed.

Tubes affect the focusing distance proportional to the focal length of the lens. A 20mm extension tube will reduce the focusing distance of a 200mm lens less than it will a 20mm lens. As a result, "closeup" photography is not possible with extension tubes and short FL lenses. The thinnest tube puts a short lens in the true macro range leaving a large unphotographable range between the smallest subject area without tubes and the largest with.

elemental · Dec 26, 2009

jbylake said:
I'm assuming you are talking digital, correct? If you are talking film, you can find mint macro and fisheye lenses that are very inexpensive..

J.

I have 35mm cameras in three different lens mounts and I've never seen a "very inexpensive" macro or fisheye that was of any decent quality (the closest would be MD/MC Minolta, since that lens mount is extinct). Many lenses designed for film are some of the best lenses on digital cameras.