Using close up filter

[hands]

Hi

I am taking some pictures of watches with the Canon 350D and the standard lense and find that it is not quite close enough.
I do not want to spend £250+ on a Macro lense and wondered what the opinion is on the "Close up 4+ Filter"
I see that you can also get the +10, any feed back welocme

 

[Artemis]

Well, to be honest thats a fine idea, a close up filter simply allows you to stand further away, and thus focus in more.

Plus...theres no reason why you cant add more than one close up filter to get as close as you want, and its alot cheaper than a macro lens.

What do you mean by standard lens? a 50mm lens? or the lens that came with your cam...?

 

[hands]

Artemis

The lense I have got is the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera.

 

[Artemis]

Alright...well thats no prob then, id get a couple of +4, or a +4 and a +2 and maybe a +3, to give a bit of veriety...but they should suit you fine and as long as you dont use about more than 3 at the same time, they should work perfectly

 

[Digital Matt]

Don't bother with close up lenses. They add uncessary glass in front of your lens, and will distort your images. The best cheap macro alternative is a 50mm f/1.8 ($70 USD), and a set of extension tubes (I've see a set for around $90).

You can get closer than 1:1 with a 50 and tubes, and there is no extra glass in the way of you and your subject. The 50mm is a very sharp lens for that money.

 

[andycarnall]

Don't bother with close up lenses. They add uncessary glass in front of your lens, and will distort your images. The best cheap macro alternative is a 50mm f/1.8 ($70 USD), and a set of extension tubes (I've see a set for around $90).

You can get closer than 1:1 with a 50 and tubes, and there is no extra glass in the way of you and your subject. The 50mm is a very sharp lens for that money.

But that's still spending $160, when you can get good results with the filter that costs between $20-80. Not disagreeing that the final result will be better with the 50mm & tubes, but if you're going to spend $160 dollars on kit for macro, you may as well go the whole way and spend $200ish on a good macro lens. Given that that was out of the question in the original post, I'd suggest that for $20 it's worth playing

 

[Big Mike]

a close up filter simply allows you to stand further away, and thus focus in more.

Actually, they don't let you stand further away...that's what a long lens would let you do. Diopter close-up filters allow you to focus the lens while you are much closer to the subject.

They do offer a less expensive way to get into macro photography but they definitely won't give you results as sharp as the other methods mentioned. I have a set (+1, +2 & +4). They can even be stacked to increase the magnification but they are very susceptible to lens flare when stacked. The DOF is very, very narrow and the edges are very soft. Here are some shots...the second one has been heavily cropped as well.

Since you are using digital, why not try a simple crop? Put your camera on a tripod and use a remote or the self timer. Get as close as your current lens will allow. When you have uploaded the photos, just crop tightly to your subject. If the photos are just for web viewing or small prints...this method might work well for you. It won't cost you anything to try.