Close Up filter (500D and 200D)

[rhino123]

Hi,

I have a 100mm macro lens that I like. But recently I am wondering if I should get a 500D or 250D close up filter.

(I have once used the extension tubes, but didn't like them so I sold them off.)

I read it somewhere that 500D is a 2x magnification and 250D is a 4x magnification (don't know if its true). I understand that both close up filter would cause some degration on my pic, but which will do more harm?

 

[Edsport]

I think you're a bit confused about those filters. Never heard of 250D or 500D filters but maybe there is some of those and i could be wrong. What you need to get is close-up filters that fits your lens for eg. if your lens is 58mm, you need to get filters that fits on it. There's different sizes like 2x, 4x etc. Here's a link you can check it out. I'd rather use an extension tube than those though. You can get electronic extension tubes. Here's the filters. closeup lenses items - Get great deals on Cameras Photo, Electronics items on eBay.com!

 

[Derrel]

I have the Canon 500D filter or close-up lens. Mine is a 77mm diameter, and it is a two-element achromatic design. The Canon 500D is of much higher quality than the simple, one-element close-up filters or + diopter filters so many people used to have. I got mine for use with a 70-200 or the 300 f/4, and it works pretty well with both of those lenses.

 

[Overread]

The types of filter that Edsport has linked to are the "bad" kind of close up filter/lenses/diopters on the market. They are very cheap, because they are cheaply made, which means they will do the job you ask of them, but it will be done poorly and with visible image degradation.


There are better kinds - the canon 500D is a popular choice and Raynox produce a series of varying powered filters as well - the DCR 250 often being a popular choice for its magnification and price point.

Image quality wise with the attachments there are two sides to this coin;

1) Adding anything to a setup is going to give you an image quality detraction - be that a filter on the front; a teleconverter; even extension tubes reduce image quality a little. However its a cost benefit factor - in good cases the image quality loss is very marginal and often won't even show up in prints or digital displays (ie its only viewable at the 100% scale) - whilst you are also gaining a use of the lens that you'd otherwise not be able to achieve - in this case increased magnification.

2) Diffraction - with specific reference to macro work people often work at small apertures for this; however you can only go so far before the softening effect of diffraction causes the image quality loss to be greater than the depth of field gain (for most people on a 1.6 crop canon camera this occurs around f16 - so most default to f13 to preserve image quality).
However when you increase the magnification; as far as I'm aware; be it with extension tubes; filters; teleconverters - the actual aperture is adjusted (decreased). So whilst the camera is still reporting f13 the actual aperture might be smaller; this makes diffraction have a more noticeable effect on the image quality and is often when and attachment might get the blame when infact its just a product of the photographer using a smaller aperture than they realise.

The upshot of that is to use a slightly wider aperture