GardenersHelper
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,344
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I have done before, in raynox dcr 250 on a d5200 I suggested that for someone wondering whether to buy a close-up lens like a Canon 500D or Raynox 150 or 250, one possible first step might be to buy a very inexpensive close-up filter set like this. (These are relatively expensive at £15 – you can get them for half as much.) This would allow them to experiment and find out whether, in practice, they liked doing close-up work, and could provide some insight into which close-up lens to choose, or to decide that close-up lenses weren't really their thing and something else like a reversing ring or a prime macro lens might be better.
As before, I made the point that close-up filters should probably be regarded as a throw-away item, used only to help decision making, because you can't get nice results from close-up filters. On reflection, I wondered if I had been a bit harsh about close-up filters. For example, the linked set of filters has 343 customer reviews at Amazon UK, averaging 4 and a half stars. And reading some of the reviews makes it clear that there are a lot of people who are very happy with close-up filters. So, I decided to do some controlled comparisons.
Just to recap, close-up filters are made from single pieces of glass and tend to suffer from chromatic aberration, and possibly other defects. In contrast, “achromats” such as the Canon 250D and 500D, the Raynox 150, 250 and MSN-202, and the Marumi 200 and 330 are made from two or more pieces of glass which work together to reduce chromatic aberration.
The strength of close-up lenses is measured in “diopters”, with a higher diopter rating meaning higher power/more magnification. Close-up filter sets typically come with four filters, rated +1, +2, +4 and +10 diopters. The set I used for the comparisons was the Polaroid set in the above link. The achromats I used for the comparisons were the Canon 500D (+2), Raynox 150 (+4.8) and Raynox 250 (+8)
Capture and processing
Canon 500D vs +2 Filter
I first compared the Canon 500D and the +2 filter, which are of exactly the same power. I captured three images with each, as shown here.
0617 13 2014_11_13 13 Comparison 500D vs +2 Filter composite annotated by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
The top pair of images are uncropped. Here is a slightly larger comparison of them. The focus box was positioned in the centre of the frame. Unfortunately, the camera was not pointing at the same area of the subject (a book cover) in both shots. The sharper version is the 500D, and its sharpness and detail are fairly constant across the frame. The centre of the filter version is sharpest, but not as sharp/detailed as the 500D version, and its sharpness/detail fall off as you move away from the centre.
0617 14 2014_11_13 14 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 1 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Here is a comparison of a cropped area from the middle pair of images. The focus box was pointing at one of the large blue O's. The version with the sharper foreground is the 500D. The filter version has blue chromatic aberration along the edge of the battery on the right hand side and red chromatic aberration around the right hand edges of the two large blue O's. The background is clearer in the Filter version, as can be seen from the ridges inside the knurling of the wheel on the left.
0617 15 2014_11_13 15 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 2 Crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Here is a comparison of a cropped area from the bottom pair of images. The focus box was positioned in the blue area on the left. As with the previous image, the foreground is sharper/more detailed in the 500D version, but the background is clearer in the filter version.
0617 16 2014_11_13 16 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 3 Crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Looking at the last of these comparisons made me wonder if one or other of the lenses was causing some geometric distortion, or whether it was simply that the 500D version covered a slightly smaller area. So I captured an additional pair of images with a clear rectangle towards the edges which would help identify any barrel or pin-cushion distortion. Here is the whole frame, and I don't see either of those distortions, but looking at the way the top and right of the filter version have moved inwards compared to the (sharper) 500D version, but the left hand side and bottom haven't, makes me think there is some difference in the geometry between the two versions. But I can't pin down exactly what the difference is or which (or perhaps in different ways both) is distorted.
0617 17 2014_11_13 17 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 4 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Raynox 150 vs +4 filter
The Raynox 150 is a bit more powerful than the +4 filter, so I first used the +4 filter at maximum zoom/magnification and then tried to line up the same shot with the Raynox, reducing the zoom/magnification appropriately.
Here is the comparison of the whole frame. The Raynox 150 version is sharper. The +4 filter version has blue and amber chromatic aberration in various places.
0617 18 2014_11_13 18 Raynox 150 vs +4 Filter Comparison 5 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Raynox 250 vs +10 filter
In this case the +10 filter is the more powerful, so I first used the Raynox 250 at maximum zoom/magnification and then tried to line up the same shot with the +10 filter, reducing the zoom/magnification appropriately. In this case autofocus worked with the Raynox 250 but would not work with the +10 filter, so I had to use manual focusing with the +10 filter. The camera was on a focus rail on a tripod for this shot, and I adjusted the focus by using the fine adjustment wheel on the focus rail to alter the distance to the subject.
The Raynox 250 version is much sharper. The manual focusing of the filter version was difficult because it didn't appear very sharp at any distance. It looks like I ended up placing the centre of focus further over to the right for the filter version. However, the best focused part of the filter version (the “mAh” line) is not as well focused as that same area in the Raynox 250 version, even though the Raynox version is best focused on the next line over to the left, and the focus has dropped off significantly by the “mAh” line.
0617 19 2014_11_13 19 Raynox 250 vs +8 Filter Comparison 6 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
EDIT: CORRECTION. The above comparison used a +10 Filter not a +8.
Conclusions
In this case, it seems that you get what you pay for in terms of image quality – the achromats are better (apart from the curious issue of some backgrounds seeming to be a bit clearer).
However, in terms of value for money, I paid more than ten times more for the three achromats than for the four filters, and the Polaroid filter set is relatively expensive. You can buy a set of four filters for £8, which would make the achromats over 20 times more expensive. Which is the better buy? That depends on personal preferences I think. Because of the image quality issues I wouldn't want to use filters, but plenty of people do, and if you are content with the image quality of filters, or if you want to use them for an initial exploration to see if you like doing close-ups, then the value proposition seems unarguable to me.
As before, I made the point that close-up filters should probably be regarded as a throw-away item, used only to help decision making, because you can't get nice results from close-up filters. On reflection, I wondered if I had been a bit harsh about close-up filters. For example, the linked set of filters has 343 customer reviews at Amazon UK, averaging 4 and a half stars. And reading some of the reviews makes it clear that there are a lot of people who are very happy with close-up filters. So, I decided to do some controlled comparisons.
Just to recap, close-up filters are made from single pieces of glass and tend to suffer from chromatic aberration, and possibly other defects. In contrast, “achromats” such as the Canon 250D and 500D, the Raynox 150, 250 and MSN-202, and the Marumi 200 and 330 are made from two or more pieces of glass which work together to reduce chromatic aberration.
The strength of close-up lenses is measured in “diopters”, with a higher diopter rating meaning higher power/more magnification. Close-up filter sets typically come with four filters, rated +1, +2, +4 and +10 diopters. The set I used for the comparisons was the Polaroid set in the above link. The achromats I used for the comparisons were the Canon 500D (+2), Raynox 150 (+4.8) and Raynox 250 (+8)
Capture and processing
- I mounted all these close-up lenses on a Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera, which is my prime tool for close-ups when I am using flash.
- I used flash with a fast shutter speed (1/500 sec) for all the captures, so as to avoid issues about softness arising from camera movement during image capture.
- I used the smallest available aperture(which I typically use for close-ups of invertebrates), as that maximises the depth of focus, which makes it easier to see the differences between image pairs.
- Except where stated otherwise, I used autofocus with a small focus box positioned in the same place for each pair of images.
- The images were shot RAW and imported into Lightroom using the defaults that I normally use.
- I did no processing in Lightroom apart from cropping. Images shown here are uncropped unless mentioned otherwise.
- The images were exported from Lightroom with no other adjustments other than resizing.
Canon 500D vs +2 Filter
I first compared the Canon 500D and the +2 filter, which are of exactly the same power. I captured three images with each, as shown here.
0617 13 2014_11_13 13 Comparison 500D vs +2 Filter composite annotated by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
The top pair of images are uncropped. Here is a slightly larger comparison of them. The focus box was positioned in the centre of the frame. Unfortunately, the camera was not pointing at the same area of the subject (a book cover) in both shots. The sharper version is the 500D, and its sharpness and detail are fairly constant across the frame. The centre of the filter version is sharpest, but not as sharp/detailed as the 500D version, and its sharpness/detail fall off as you move away from the centre.
0617 14 2014_11_13 14 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 1 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Here is a comparison of a cropped area from the middle pair of images. The focus box was pointing at one of the large blue O's. The version with the sharper foreground is the 500D. The filter version has blue chromatic aberration along the edge of the battery on the right hand side and red chromatic aberration around the right hand edges of the two large blue O's. The background is clearer in the Filter version, as can be seen from the ridges inside the knurling of the wheel on the left.
0617 15 2014_11_13 15 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 2 Crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Here is a comparison of a cropped area from the bottom pair of images. The focus box was positioned in the blue area on the left. As with the previous image, the foreground is sharper/more detailed in the 500D version, but the background is clearer in the filter version.
0617 16 2014_11_13 16 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 3 Crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Looking at the last of these comparisons made me wonder if one or other of the lenses was causing some geometric distortion, or whether it was simply that the 500D version covered a slightly smaller area. So I captured an additional pair of images with a clear rectangle towards the edges which would help identify any barrel or pin-cushion distortion. Here is the whole frame, and I don't see either of those distortions, but looking at the way the top and right of the filter version have moved inwards compared to the (sharper) 500D version, but the left hand side and bottom haven't, makes me think there is some difference in the geometry between the two versions. But I can't pin down exactly what the difference is or which (or perhaps in different ways both) is distorted.
0617 17 2014_11_13 17 500D vs +2 Filter Comparison 4 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Raynox 150 vs +4 filter
The Raynox 150 is a bit more powerful than the +4 filter, so I first used the +4 filter at maximum zoom/magnification and then tried to line up the same shot with the Raynox, reducing the zoom/magnification appropriately.
Here is the comparison of the whole frame. The Raynox 150 version is sharper. The +4 filter version has blue and amber chromatic aberration in various places.
0617 18 2014_11_13 18 Raynox 150 vs +4 Filter Comparison 5 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Raynox 250 vs +10 filter
In this case the +10 filter is the more powerful, so I first used the Raynox 250 at maximum zoom/magnification and then tried to line up the same shot with the +10 filter, reducing the zoom/magnification appropriately. In this case autofocus worked with the Raynox 250 but would not work with the +10 filter, so I had to use manual focusing with the +10 filter. The camera was on a focus rail on a tripod for this shot, and I adjusted the focus by using the fine adjustment wheel on the focus rail to alter the distance to the subject.
The Raynox 250 version is much sharper. The manual focusing of the filter version was difficult because it didn't appear very sharp at any distance. It looks like I ended up placing the centre of focus further over to the right for the filter version. However, the best focused part of the filter version (the “mAh” line) is not as well focused as that same area in the Raynox 250 version, even though the Raynox version is best focused on the next line over to the left, and the focus has dropped off significantly by the “mAh” line.
0617 19 2014_11_13 19 Raynox 250 vs +8 Filter Comparison 6 Full frame by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
EDIT: CORRECTION. The above comparison used a +10 Filter not a +8.
Conclusions
In this case, it seems that you get what you pay for in terms of image quality – the achromats are better (apart from the curious issue of some backgrounds seeming to be a bit clearer).
However, in terms of value for money, I paid more than ten times more for the three achromats than for the four filters, and the Polaroid filter set is relatively expensive. You can buy a set of four filters for £8, which would make the achromats over 20 times more expensive. Which is the better buy? That depends on personal preferences I think. Because of the image quality issues I wouldn't want to use filters, but plenty of people do, and if you are content with the image quality of filters, or if you want to use them for an initial exploration to see if you like doing close-ups, then the value proposition seems unarguable to me.
Last edited:
