Lens filter compatibility

[Tomasko]

I guess you already know extension also causes quality degradation.

It can't degrade the quality, it's just a thing to put your lenses further from your camera. Extension tubes have nothing to do with IQ

I assume you may notice I never say go buy the $50 glasses

What did you say then? I recall you were saying, that tubes aren't generally cheaper. What else did you mean by that then?

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

Because most of the time your lens will just hunt the focus It isn't as precise as it could be and you won't get guarantee, that it will work flawlessly. Read that many times, experienced that...
Using Diopters - Close-Up Lenses

Theoretically, AutoFocus will work with diopters. As a practical matter, I found it works OK with the 50mm lens, but with the 80-210 after getting past the +1 or +2 diopter manual focus is a must.

Not the only source that is saying basically the same

For me, at the time when I wanted to take macro type shots, I went with a used Macro lens

Even used and cheapest TRUE 1:1 macro lenses are much more expensive that tubes or close-up diopters.. Sure, it's the best solution for macro, but for a higher price.

 

[Overread]

I'm off to get some food but I will return with a more in-depth reply - however for now those who are saying that adding filters degrades image quality remember - moving the lens from its optimum point of position (using extension tubes) also degrades the image quality.
Furthermore whilst they are not £100s or £1000s in cost, high quality macro filters/macro lens addons are fully capable of delivering a very high quality result - heck with the right setup you can beat a Canon MPE 65mm macro with Raynox attachments on the right lens:
My thoughts on MP-E 65mm | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I've even read from another highly respected and very good macro photographer (I think it might even have been John again) that the Raynox glass degrades at about the same rate as extension tubes degrade

 

[Overread]

Right back and a few points to add/consider:

1) Price Vs performance

This isn't as cut and dry as presented above because the magnification gained through the use of extension tubes and through the use of macro lens attachments varies depending upon the focal length of the lens itself.
A short cut and dry guideline is that (for a given length of extension tube) you get more magnification from extension tubes on short focal length lenses than on long ones; whilst macro lens attachments operate the other way around, giving more on longer focal length lenses.
A very rough guildine cut-off is 100mm - below that and its generally advised to go for extension tubes and above that macro lens attachments - note that this is purely looking at it from a magnification gained perspective and you can always use either item on longer or shorter focal length lenses.


Auto focus - typically speaking once you're into 1:1 magnification areas (ie true macro) auto focus becomes very unreliable and is generally not accurate enough nor fast enough to keep up with macro based photography. Even on the full macro lenses manual focus is the tried and tested approach many use. Whilst this area is changing slowly (the 7D for example has a new hybrid AF which allows it to counter back and forward tilt when used with canon macro lenses) its still an area where manually focusing is the way to go.
Note for those wondering now why you get high end extension tubes for their metal contacts, its not for AF control so much as for having aperture control (although I will point out that AF control is important when using tubes for magnification gain in situations outside of pure macro work).


Note also that the diopter sets of +1, +2, +3 type arrangments are typically the bottom end of the market and made up of single element uncoated glass. It's cheap glass and the results on the website that Tomasko links clearly shows this in the results. Options like the Canon 500D and the Raynox series are multi element (two or more) and coated filters and made of high-grade optical glass.
In short they work far better and, whilst adding glass to the setup, the image quality degradation is minimal compared to the gained advantage. Note however that you will oft find that as you increase magnification higher and higher the diffraction limit also lowers, so whilst at 1:1 you can use f13, by magnifications like 5:1 you are well down to f5.6 (this remains true even with lens approaches like the Canon MPE).
Furthermore whilst stacking is increasing the glass, you can easily stack one or two without much trouble - again provided that you are using the quality options.

 

[Dao]

I guess you already know extension also causes quality degradation.

It can't degrade the quality, it's just a thing to put your lenses further from your camera. Extension tubes have nothing to do with IQ

It can.

I assume you may notice I never say go buy the $50 glasses

What did you say then? I recall you were saying, that tubes aren't generally cheaper. What else did you mean by that then?

If I say BMWs are NOT generally cheaper, does that mean I just told you to buy a cheap car?

Because most of the time your lens will just hunt the focus It isn't as precise as it could be and you won't get guarantee, that it will work flawlessly. Read that many times, experienced that...
Using Diopters - Close-Up Lenses

I think I need to ask those people who use the Canon 500D as well as the Raynox diopter and see if they have issue with AF even I do not use AF with my macro shots. It good to know. BTW, I am not planning to stack them.

For me, at the time when I wanted to take macro type shots, I went with a used Macro lens

Even used and cheapest TRUE 1:1 macro lenses are much more expensive that tubes or close-up diopters.. Sure, it's the best solution for macro, but for a higher price.

Did I said anything about TRUE 1:1 macro lenses are cheaper than tubes or close-up diopters? I think I need to see a doctor. You keep telling me something that I never said or mentioned. Something must me wrong with me.


<Me scratching my head wonder what's going on?>

 

[Overread]

ps for those doubting the quality of filters:

and a 100% crop

Taken with Canon 400D, Sigma 150mm macro, Sigma 1.4TC and a Raynox DCR 250 (fair amount of added glass after adding teleconverter and the close up attachment)

 

[Aeonflame]

You've all given me a lot to consider. I'm leaning towards the macro filters, especially considering the convenience.... but are there any other factors that will make the difference in IQ between a filter and a tube? I dont intend to use AF for macro shots.