Filter and converter

[Bukitimah]

Hi, I have been reading reviews on filters and converters. Most would go for the straight answer by advising that you buy the macro lens, tele lens or wide angle lens instead of converters/filters.

While I fully agree that the specific lens is designed to do that job, are filters and converters a 'poor man' version to match those expensive lenses? With good technique and better selection, would one be able to achieve 80% of what the specialised lens can perform?

I personally have been using the Rayox DCR 250 macro add on filter. I feel it is a worthy filter that can achieve what a macro lens can do. In fact, some 'experts' claimed that even if you use a macro lens, you still need a macro filter to achieve good result. That I have no experience. The disadvantage of using a macro filter is that you need to remove the filter if want to shoot something further away. You also need to crop your photo to zoom in the subject.

Have anyone of you used the wide angle or fisheye converter and find the result to be acceptable? I have tried a 0.5 wide angle converter. It did provide the angle but I can't tell if the image is acceptable since I am not able to match that with a true wide angle lens.

Appreciate some feedback and photographs for comparison. Thank you

 

[Judobreaker]

Of course the main factor in a good macro photo is simply the photographer.
Some people can shoot the most brilliant images with a simple macro filter while others can produce nothing more than crap with the most advanced macro lens.
However, this isn't really a fair comparison.
The only fair comparison would be if both of these options were used by a single experienced macro photographer. This way you can see the actual difference between the different set-ups.

I believe the macro lens will definitely perform better than a macro lens in sharpness and such.
Filters are extra glass, extra glass always means there will be some form of quality loss (how much depends on the quality of the filter).

The fact that you need a macro filter with a macro lens to be able to achieve good results is ********.
I can definitely imagine adding a macro filter to a macro lens, but not because I need better quality. I'm guessing that adding such a filter would increase magnification, something every real macro shooter is interested in.

The above story applies to all other types of photography.
A longer lens is better than a shorter lens of the same quality with a teleconverter added.

With macro there is another option besides real macro lenses and/or macro filters. Extension tubes.
These are probably the best cheap replacement for a macro lens (or really fun in combination with one ).
There is no quality loss at all with these simply because there is no extra glass added, only distance between lens and sensor.
Some light will be lost though because of the increased distance, which is why extra lighting is usually a good idea with these things.

 

[tirediron]

"Acceptable" is purely subjective. I have used both, and IMO, even the "best" of the add-on lenses/filters don't come close to the results achieved with a good quality macro/wide/UWA/fisheye. That said, if you can't or don't want to spend the money on the "real" lens, the filter-style are a substitute. You can also get some good deals on older used lenses. They may not auto-focus or meter on your body, but the results will make up for it.

 

[Bukitimah]

Hi guys thank you for your reply. I guess it is very much into one's expectations. Hope with technology, improved versions camera will help with such limitations.