close up lens

[malvizz]

Hi
I have just been given a Canon EOS 450D which came with a EF-S 18-55mm lens.
I enjoy taking pictures of flowers but find it difficult to take good ones when the flowers are very small.
As I cannot afford a macro lens I have been adviced to get a Canon 250D or 500D close up lens.
My questions are:
a) Which one should I get
b) When using this lens should the camera be set to "Close up" function or "Manual"
c) These lenses come in different models eg. 52mm. 58mm. 72mm. What do these numbers refer to

Thanks to all those who could help me out

AGF

[munkie]

why dont you look at getting a Raynox macro lens

its not a lens but a bit of glass that clips on the front of your lens and you can get some great shots from it

a shot with my camera and a raynox

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb134/munkie2003/DSC00355-1.jpg

[malvizz]

Thanks Munkie. Never heard of them before. Will look into them.

[coldpenguin]

I believe you are both talking about the same thing.

To find out what size you require, look at the front of the lens you have. It will state the filter diameter, this is usually done via a symbol, a circle with a diagonal line protuding through it.
These lenses (a piece of glass which bends light, is a definitition of a lens, however, it doesn't quite fit with what people would think of immediately when you say lens here), attach to the front of your camera lens via the filter thread. Often on ebay they come in sets of 4, listing their dioptric adjustment (+1, +2, +4 and +10 is what I bought). They allow your camera to focus closer, by adjusting the light coming in (they make it more parallel).
These are a cheap way of starting off on macro images (taking images of items and increasing their size to be larger than real life).
They are not unfortunately a replacement to a true macro lens (they are all I have though, if you are not too serious on taking these macro photos, there is no point in spending hundreds, try first, if you like the results, then a real macro lens is going to be an improvement).

Downsides to these filter lenses are
1) There is going to be more degradation in image quality than with a macro lens. Two reasons for this, cheaper glass, and you are bending light out then in again.
2) The focusing distance is usually a factor of the dioptric measurement. If I remember my physics correctly, true adjustment to parallel would be 1m/dioptres. i.e. if you have 4 dioptres, then a point 25cm away would be converted to parallel light through the lens. This is not quite the case, because your camera will also have a lens on it, which will bend the light, however, when I use my +10, the focusing point is somewhere between 8-15cm, dependant on the focus point of the lens. This means you will probably need to focus by moving the camera, rather than rotating your lens (automatic focus is less likely, unless you are already in the ball-park)

[munkie]

i forgot to add that the raynox was attached to my 18-75 kit lens

this one is better than the one i had
CLICKY CLICK ME :) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Raynox-Macro-52-67-Converter-MSN-202-Canon-Sony-Nikon_W0QQitemZ220412716924QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_C amerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN?hash= item33519f277c&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1690%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50)

[akr]

Have you though about extension tubes - Kenko do some that are highly regarded (I have just got some but not had a real go yet) such as these http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1005553

Plenty of other makes I'm sure as well.

[Kryptix]

The 18-55mm IS will have a 58mm filter size.

[xSitara™]

Hello, you should reverse your lens. Exactly what I do, you'll get fantastic shots with it and guess what, it wont cost you jack!

;)

[Claymore]

Hello, you should reverse your lens. Exactly what I do, you'll get fantastic shots with it and guess what, it wont cost you jack!

;)
You do need to buy an adaptor before you can attach it to your camera though? not very expensive though

[coldpenguin]

Kryptix, are you sure? I have the 18-55 non IS from the 400d kit. That is definitely 58mm. I saw a canon EW-73b advertised as suitable for the 450d kit lens, and missed the IS part, this definitely is not 58mm (or 72, or 77).

[xSitara™]

Claymore, you can actually do it without an adapter also but as you said, very cheap to buy a reverse ring, I might be giving mine away for free soon :)

[jgs001]

AGF, I'd take a look at the Raynox. The DCR250 will allow some very good images to be captured, whilst still allowing the IS and AF confirm to operate. Cheap tubes will not and make setting the aperture to get a reasonable DOF really tough, and tubes that do allow communication cost a lot more than the Raynox. I use my Raynox with my 55-250, as at 100mm I get about 1:1 or true macro. This was shot at 70mm (I can't find an example at 55mm sorry).

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg118/johns_bucketofphotos/macro/IMG_5423.jpg

I paid about £30 for mine, but I think they are about £40 odd now on ebay.

I've not tried a reversing ring, but the issue of IS and Aperture settings are there with the reversing option. The kit lens for the 450d has a 58mm filter thread to which the Raynox provided adpater clips onto. HTH.

I set to Manual, or rarely Aperture priority.

[malvizz]

Thanks JGS.
Do you know whether it would need an adapter for my Canon EF-S 18-55 lens ?

[jgs001]

Nope, the Raynox comes with an adapter that will clip on any lens that has filter threads between 52 and 67mm. The kit lens has the same threads as my 55-250 so no problems at all with fitting it. You will get some vignetting around the corners with the kit lens, as the Raynox lens is a bit smaller than the kit lens objective, but that's quite easy to deal with by cropping... I'd estimate that at 55mm you'd get about 1:2, so half macro.

I found an example at 55mm... I didn't notice the bug on the flower till I'd downloaded the image and started processing it. I think the flower was about 20mm across.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg118/johns_bucketofphotos/macro/IMG_5399.jpg

[malvizz]

Thanks JGS.
You and Munkie have convinced me with your results.
I have just ordered one from Amazon for 47 Stg.

[jgs001]

You'll enjoy it, it's tricky to get used to, but it's worth it... when you get it and use it, turn off Autofocus, and focus by moving either the camera or the subject backwards and forwards... you want to also use somewhere around f12 to get much in the way of DOF.

[malvizz]

Many thanks for your help JGS. One last question.
Do I have to move camera or object to achieve focus ?
Can I not use manual focusing ?

[jgs001]

I've not tried Manual focussing, but I tend to use the focus ring to get a little more image scale. At different times I've moved the camera and the object to get focus, without rails, it's much harder to shift a tripod mounted camera than it is to move a static object.

[ekimeno]

You can use manual focusing, but physically moving closer or further away is better as you get more precise control.

EDIT, John beat me to it ;)

[sepulchre]

maybe a daft question but how do you determin if your shooting macro at 1:1 (or any other ratio) when using this lens?

[jgs001]

I used some shots of a ruler at various focal lengths and compared that to the width of the sensor. The sensor on the 450d is 22mm across the width, I got 22mm of ruler to fit on the sensor at about 100mm which is a reproduction ratio of 1:1. Other test shots show, as you would expect, that at 200mm I'm getting 2:1 and at 250mm about 2.5:1. At 55mm on the kit lens it'll be about 1:2. These values are only valid if the sensor width is 22mm and are rough measures I use as a guide. The 40d has the same size sensor as my 450d so I'd expect you'd get roughly the same results. I don't know what effect changing the lens would have (it's only just occurred to me to be honest), the 55-250 I use has a normal minimum focus distance of 1.1m, I guess the ratio's may be different for lenses that focus at different distances... Hmm... I'll have to try that.

EDIT: Just tried a quick test, and the min focus distances of the lenses has no bearing on it.

[sepulchre]

Cheers jgs, I thought that might be the way to go about it. I'll be hitting the bay this afternoon based on your images with the raynox. Thanks for the help :thumbs:

edit.. actually before I hit the bay, whats the distance between you and the subject like with the raynox attached? I tried tubes out but the distances were too small to get anything like bugs.