500D Macro Lens filter?

[BuZzZeRkEr]

I just heard about this. I was thinking about getting a macro lens but it sounds like the Canon 500D macro filter might be what I need. I'm using Nikon glass but I heard the filter works with Nikon 77mm lenses...I will try to use it with my 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Does the filter convert to 1:1 ratio? What are the pros and cons vs getting a macro lens? I'm going to be using macro shots for wedding ring/items shots and some crystal product shots. Thanks for any info in advance.

 

[benhasajeep]

I just heard about this. I was thinking about getting a macro lens but it sounds like the Canon 500D macro filter might be what I need. I'm using Nikon glass but I heard the filter works with Nikon 77mm lenses...I will try to use it with my 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Does the filter convert to 1:1 ratio? What are the pros and cons vs getting a macro lens? I'm going to be using macro shots for wedding ring/items shots and some crystal product shots. Thanks for any info in advance.

I am not sure but I am guessing that the filter is a screw on lens adapter?? If it is I would suggest you go with extension tubes instead. The extension tubes have no glass in them so they impare no image changes from the lens, other than increasing the size of the item your taking a picture of. Kenko makes a good set of tubes, along with nikon's own line.

Reason I say extension tube is that the "filter" type macro attachments are basically magnifying glasses. And they are not made for a specific lens. So the cheaper ones add chromatic aberations and what not. With extension tube you do nothing to change the glass characteristics. The way to go in my book.

There is also the option of using a macro focusing rail as well. I have that and the Kenko tube set. Along with a 105mm macro lens as well.

 

[Overread]

This thread might be of interest to you:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...photo-gallery/163904-how-do-these-work-2.html

Extension tubes, whilst not containing any glass components do alter the way light reaches the sensor and thus do cause some image degradation - its very minor and most times you will never notice it in the field - only in test shots when your specifically looking for it in a fixed studio setup.
Myself I prefer the Raynox macro filters with their clip on/off attachment - lets you change from macro to normal very quickly.

As for the lenses you have the kit lens should do a good job and be the easier to get to 1:1 macro the zoom lens would be a bit more suited to lighter magnifications as it is a heavier lens and you need very steady hands (or a solid tripod and focusing rail - note I prefer the ebay focusing rails or some other higher brand ones of similar design over the focusing rail from manfrotto).

 

[Dwig]

The Canon 500D is a high quality +2 diopter closeup lens. It should work well on the 70-300mm and might work well on the shorter 17-55mm when zoomed to the longer 55mm end of the zoom range.

BTW, refering to "closeup lenses" as "diopters" is somewhat incorrect. The term "diopter" is a measure of focal length ( D = 1 / FLm, diopter = 1 divided by the focal length in meters). The strength of a closeup lens is generally measured in diopters though sometime its spec'd in mm. Canon uses mm, hence the "500" in the name of this lens ( 2 = 1/(0.500). It is also never correct to refer to them as "filters" as they don't filter light (selectively pass some light and reduce or eliminate other portions of the spectrum).

The the minimum focusing distance is and what the reproduction ratio achieved at that distance is too difficult to calculate since certain values aren't accurately known (actual FL of camera lens when focused to minimum distance in particular). Deternining this is a matter of trial-and-terror. All that can be said accurately from the numbers is that the maximum focusing distance, measured from the front of the closeup lens to the subject, will be 500mm (~19.5").

 

[Overread]

true whilst filter and diopter might not be the correct words -they are words used in common parlance and many websites (both product listings and sales ones) do list them as filters and diopters - so it does make it easier for a person to follow what is going on at the early stages.
Rather like how macro is now used to refer to 1:2 macro not just 1:1 macro as it once was - again a move manufacturers have made

 

[BuZzZeRkEr]

Thanks for all the help guys. I decided on a Tamron 90mm 1:1 2.8, not the Nikkor 105mm, but alot cheaper and great alternative. Can't wait to see what she's gonna do on the job