Do Macro Filters Work?

[DMP000]

Anyone use these? I bought a new lens and it is really pretty nice but doesn't quite get as close up as I'd like for insects and such. Any experience with these things? They seem so cheap I'm just wondering if the overall picture quality is bad?

 

[cgipson1]

Most of them are junk! Canon makes a good one which is not cheap... and there are the Raynox DCR series which do a good job also.

Amazon.com: Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Canon 500D 77mm Close Up Lens: Camera & Photo

But the cheap screw on filters will only hurt IQ, and are not worth what you pay for them.

There are other options.. tubes, lens reversal, etc....

 

[DMP000]

Wow that Raynox has some nice IQ to it.

 

[TCampbell]

There are at least three or four ways to do close-up shots. The close-up diopters (filters) are on the lowest cost end.

If you use an ordinary magnifying glass and inspect some printing in a book, newspaper, etc. very carefully, you'll notice that the image in the center looks fairly good, but you'll notice that the image is a bit distorted away from the center. You'll also notice that even though the page & print is black and white that you can see color fringing of blue and red fringes around the edges of letters near the outer edges of the magnifying glass. That's because the "white" paper is actually a reflection of all colors in the spectrum and the edges of the glass are working like a prism... splitting the "white" light into a rainbow where blue light bends more than red light. That results in the color fringe where the letters have a red fringe on one side and a blue fringe on the other. The name for this phenomena is "chromatic aberration" or "CA" for short.

When you use a single element diopter, you'll get issues such as this. You will be able to get closer, but if you inspect the quality near the edges of the frame you may notice some CA. Canon makes a multi-element close-up diopter which limits the effect -- but it's considerably more expensive. I once did a search to see who else makes multi-element close-up diopters and I *think* I may have found only one other company... these things are hard to find. Incidentally... Canon markets the diopters for people who own advanced point & shoot cameras ... since you can't change the lens there's no option to just use extension tubes or a macro lens. It's a close-up diopter or nothing at all.


You can also use "extension tubes". These are hollow barrels. You remove the lens, mount the extension tube to the body, then mount the lens to the tube. They do have electric contacts on them so the camera body and lens can still communicate. By moving the lens farther away from the body you shorten the range of focus distances that the lens can use. The minimum focus distance gets closer, but also so does the farthest focus distance (meaning the lens will no longer focus all the way to "infinity" when it's mounted on the tube.) The tubes have no optical elements at all... nothing inside but air. Extension tubes tend to be fairly inexpensive.


On the high end, you can buy a proper "macro" lens. This is the most expensive solution, but it's also the highest quality. There are a lot of zoom lens with a "macro" range. That's usually good for 1:4 or sometimes 1:3 image size scale. True macro lenses tend to get all the way down to 1:1 (size of the object projected onto the sensor is the same as the size of the object in real life.) True dedicated 1:1 scale macro lenses (which are not zoom lenses) tend to have astonishingly good optics.

 

[DMP000]

Thanks TCampbell, I decided to cancel my diopter order. Not that I would have been out a lot but why bother if the images aren't that good. They Raynox Cgipson1 mentioned does look to have some pretty quality imaging but not sure about the price. If I was to go that route then maybe just spend more and go with the actual macro lens. I have a Nikon D5100 right now with a 35mm 1.8 lens and of course the kit. I don't care too much about auto focus on Macro so any recommendations? Not in a big hurry either to get one as its not really the best season for macro activities.

I also bought the 35mm to take better pictures of my sculptures. The kits lenses from all the cameras I've owned always leave some distortion. Partially could be my fault for not leveling the camera body better but noticed this lens is much better and keeps my work looking natural, which leaves me pretty happy. So, I DONT want anything that alters the images.

 

[cgipson1]

You will not find a decent macro lens for less than the cost of the Raynox... but you might could find a lens you could attach on the end of your current lens, reversed. But you would also need a reverse adapter that would work.. and agan, will probably spend more then the cost of the Raynox....

This was taken with a Tokina 100 macro, and a Raynox DCR-250 (as an example)


Fleshfly (family Sarcophagidae) by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

 

[joshua_]

Anyone use these? I bought a new lens and it is really pretty nice but doesn't quite get as close up as I'd like for insects and such. Any experience with these things? They seem so cheap I'm just wondering if the overall picture quality is bad?

I didn't realize I would be so intersted in macro. I did try the filter, but had much better results with the tubes. I can get the tubes to work, but it takes me a good amount of time to get everything just right.

I'm already ready for a macro lens.

 

[cgipson1]

Anyone use these? I bought a new lens and it is really pretty nice but doesn't quite get as close up as I'd like for insects and such. Any experience with these things? They seem so cheap I'm just wondering if the overall picture quality is bad?

I didn't realize I would be so intersted in macro. I did try the filter, but had much better results with the tubes. I can get the tubes to work, but it takes me a good amount of time to get everything just right.

I'm already ready for a macro lens.

A lens is definitely the best way to go.. and then add tubes, etc.. to that lens for even more fun!

 

[jrizal]

Most of them are junk! Canon makes a good one which is not cheap... and there are the Raynox DCR series which do a good job also.

Amazon.com: Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Canon 500D 77mm Close Up Lens: Camera & Photo

But the cheap screw on filters will only hurt IQ, and are not worth what you pay for them.

There are other options.. tubes, lens reversal, etc....

I would have to agree on this one. The 10+ diopter included in most packages simply makes it nearly impossible to focus giving a total blur and not simply a slight out of focus shot and obviously not usable. You are better off IMO using your kit lens and doing some cropping if you are a newbie. If you want to progress but have limited resources, then consider used lenses. Tubes and lens reversals are other inexpensive alternatives but can sometimes be daunting and even frustrating for newbies. Do some research on this.

 

[DMP000]

I'm glad I just canceled my order. $20 but still, that can feed me for the day. The Tokina 100 lens looks pretty awesome. Will have to see if there are any pictures of that on the 5100 on Flickr. Only had the 35mm lens a few days and very impressed with it.

 

[cgipson1]

I'm glad I just canceled my order. $20 but still, that can feed me for the day. The Tokina 100 lens looks pretty awesome. Will have to see if there are any pictures of that on the 5100 on Flickr. Only had the 35mm lens a few days and very impressed with it.

Any of the dedicated 1:1 macro lenses are awesome... some just cost more than others. The Tamron 90mm, the Tokina 100mm, or any of the older Nikon D Macro lenses can be a great way to get started in Macro for a smaller investment. If yo uwant to shoot insects, I would suggest staying in the 85mm or above focal lengths... the minimum focusing distance on 40mm, 50mm, 60mm macros is so close, you will frighten your subjects, and they are harder to light properly, and will throw shadows.

 

[Big Mike]

I have a set of Hoya diopter filters. (+1, +2 & +4).
They were cheap and yes, the image quality isn't great (especially around the edges). But for the price I paid, I'm not complaining. They give me the ability to get nice and close and let me have some fun with macro. If you are going to buy tubes or a Macro lens, the yes, skip the diopters...but if the budget is tight, you'll get a lot of fun for only $20.

 

[DMP000]

I have a set of Hoya diopter filters. (+1, +2 & +4).
They were cheap and yes, the image quality isn't great (especially around the edges). But for the price I paid, I'm not complaining. They give me the ability to get nice and close and let me have some fun with macro. If you are going to buy tubes or a Macro lens, the yes, skip the diopters...but if the budget is tight, you'll get a lot of fun for only $20.

I agree for the $20 it probably is worth it for some people. I think I would lean more towards quite a bit of Macro photography than only once in a while. I think saving up for a bit and then going with a full Macro lens might be the most rewarding for me. After looking through some of the pictures and seeing prices on Ebay makes me think I will be happy with the lens vs. filters.

 

[amolitor]

Tubes and a focusing rail will take you a long long way..

 

[bsinmich]

I gave the tubes away and went with a bellows several years back. I just use a 75mm enlarging lens since I use it on Pentax SLRs. The enlarging lens is designed for close range and it is just being used in reverse for taking photos. I took the cheap way out.