Lens filter compatibility

[Aeonflame]

I recently bought a Pentax K-r with kit lens and sigma 50-200 lens. I want to take macro photos as well, but can't afford a macro lens at this time so I'm thinking of buying macro lens filters. My question is, are all or most lens filters compatible with lenses of the same diameter? For instance, the kit lens on the pentax is 52mm. Will all 52 mm filters work on it?

 

[tirediron]

Yes, unless specifically noted as being for a particular lens (eg Hasselblad) all filters of a given diameter will fit a lens with that diameter.

 

[Tomasko]

Unless you have some ultra-wide lens you should be fine

 

[Aeonflame]

Thank you for the replies That clears a lot up for me. I have just a question or two more to ask. The kit lens is 52 mm, but the sigma is 55mm. I would like to use the filters on both lenses, so I did some searching and found that there are adapters available. Is it better to buy the 52mm filters and use a step up adapter, or get the 55mm and use a step down adapter?

Would it be clearer (and is it ok) for me to post the amazon links to the equipment I mentioned?

 

[Overread]

Its better to always use Step down adaptors and buy bigger filters to fit to smaller lenses as there really isn't anything to lose with his method, however attaching smaller filters to bigger lenses can cause vignetting (corner shadowing) problems.

Also which macro lens attachments are you thinking on getting? The market for these is split very clearly into low cost, but poorly built options that work, but give poor image quality - and a higher band that, whilst affordable, are multi-element and far better quality. Canon makes a 500D macro lens attachment (yes 500D is also the name of a camera body) and Raynox makes a series of attachments (they are smaller diameter, but work on most lenses over something like 50mm without vignetting) such as the DCR 150 and 250 as well as much more powerful options - these two ranges of product would be ideal top quality options to go for.

 

[Aeonflame]

Thank you. I was thinking along those same lines with regards to the step down adapter. I'm afraid that I was looking at the quite cheap ones on amazon. They were the only filter type macro lenses I could find on there. They received mostly good reviews, (though I'm sure not by professionals) and the sample images seemed ok. I'm aware of the limitations and issues with those filters, but I'm also thinking that at <$15 dollars I cant really lose. Of course, I will be saving for a proper macro lens later on. I'm afraid that The options here in Trinidad are limited and quite expensive. Even importing camera equipment is very costly. I work in the IT industry, so photography is just a hobby to me though I wish I could make it more. If only I had the skill and money to do so.

 

[Overread]

Have a try for the Raynox if you can, its not money wasted either as the optics in the good quality close up attachments allow you to easily use them on a macro lens later for even more magnification from the lens setup (for even more fun ). Low grade ones, as you say, will do the job, but the quality will suffer a lot (remember resized photos on the internet will hide a lot of imperfections even without any extensive editing).

 

[Jan Matis]

don't use macro filters.
rather go for Macro Extension Tube Rings

 

[2WheelPhoto]

don't use macro filters.
rather go for Macro Extension Tube Rings

+1

Kenko tubes.

 

[Tomasko]

I agree with Jan Matis... I have Delta tubes (with AF/IS support and metal mount) and they work flawlessly. You don't need to think about filter sizes, quality of optics or anything similar.

 

[Dao]

If you go with filter, I think Raynox and the Canon 500D diopters are not bad. I do not own neither one, but I saw photos taken with them are not bad at all.

 

[Tomasko]

Nobody's saying that they are bad, but extension tubes are generally cheaper (when talking about the same performance) and it's always easier to damage filter or raynox than to damage an extension tube

 

[Dao]

Nobody's saying that extension tubes are bad. The good extension tubes are not generally cheaper (when talking about the same performance).

 

[Tomasko]

Oh, this is interesting My Delta extension tubes cost me about &#8364; 89.00 total (13+21+31), they can utilize both AF and IS, have metal mount... I can use them with whatever lens I want, how I want. I can use all 3 or just one, I can decide what magnification I want etc.
Now look at 500D close-up for instance. They can be found in prices ranging about 70 to 120 euros in my country. You can't AF with them and they certainly don't provide such adaptability nor magnification. Sure, you can stack them, but... I hope no further explanation is needed for cons against doing that.
Approx. the same applies to Raynox as well, not mentioning they both wear off over time and you can't keep them from harm for long (raynox especially, cause it is all plastic). You can be as careful as you want Plus any optical addition to your lens causes some quality degradation. Or do you really believe, that some glass for $50 can compete with few hundred-thousand worth lenses? If it's possible, it's always best to avoid to use any optical additions.

 

[Dao]

I guess you already know extension also causes quality degradation.
I hope you already know I never say extension tube are bad.
I assume you may notice I never say go buy the $50 glasses
I hope you understand I told OP "If you go with filter, .... "

You can't AF with them and they certainly don't provide such adaptability nor magnification

I don't understand why the camera cannot AF with them. That is just a screw in Diopter.


For me, at the time when I wanted to take macro type shots, I went with a used Macro lens after I did own research on dedicated macro lens, extension tube as well as the diopter. At this point, I am even thinking adding a diopter to my existing 100mm macro lens.