Any experience of a Macro Filter on a 300mm?
- Thread starter jammy_c
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you mean close-up lenses. They are not filters and they don't do proper macro.
I use them now and then to get closer with longer lenses, and they're okay for flowers etc if you don't get anything too strong - say +2 dioptres max. Hoya do them quite cheaply, and B+W. Canon also makes some stronger ones in a few sizes and they are optical doublets so should be better, but I've not used them and they're expensive.
Maybe a set of Kenko extension tubes for about £120 would suit you better.
The options run like this: close-up lenses - cheap and easy, handy if you don't want to go too close; tubes - better, closer, but fiddly; macro lens - really close, super quality, very easy to use, expensive.
I use them now and then to get closer with longer lenses, and they're okay for flowers etc if you don't get anything too strong - say +2 dioptres max. Hoya do them quite cheaply, and B+W. Canon also makes some stronger ones in a few sizes and they are optical doublets so should be better, but I've not used them and they're expensive.
Maybe a set of Kenko extension tubes for about £120 would suit you better.
The options run like this: close-up lenses - cheap and easy, handy if you don't want to go too close; tubes - better, closer, but fiddly; macro lens - really close, super quality, very easy to use, expensive.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've got a Canon 500D which I use on my 300/4. As Hoppy says, it's a doubler so the native magnification of the lens will determine the ultimate magnification you get. I know that Nikon don't have an equivalent offering and people use the Canon version for this reason.
They do detract from the performance of the native lens but are far better than the "simple lens" versions.
Bob
They do detract from the performance of the native lens but are far better than the "simple lens" versions.
Bob
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That's useful to know Bob. Always wondered if they were any good. Shame they are only available in a few sizes (not including 67mm
).
jgs001
Brian Cox
- Messages
- 12,646
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Raynox will fit on lenses with 67mm filter threads. The results, I'm sure are not as good as a true Macro lens, but it's a cheap way to get started and you can get some good results. On a 1.6x crop body, with the DCR250 (I think it's +8 Dioptres) you get roughly 1x magnification for each 100mm of focal length.
- Messages
- 1,175
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's useful to know Bob. Always wondered if they were any good. Shame they are only available in a few sizes (not including 67mm
They work fine with step down rings though, I bought the 77mm version and use it on a 70-200 f4 which is 67mm.
I intend to try it on the 100-400 at some point but I imagine holding that lot still will be a problem.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks, but I've got a set of Kenko tubes now (£80 off here
). I did wonder about a stepping ring, but I think extension tubes are ultimately a better solution at that price.I'm not familiar with the way Raynox mark their lenses, but if anybody fancies a go with these things, they are usually marked in dioptres, just like your gran's reading glasses (basically, that's what they are).
A +1 dioptre close-up lens has a focal length of 1,000mm and when fitted to the end of your lens, the focusing distance is reduced to exactly that distance from the front of the lens when set at infinity (not from the sensor, which is where normal focusing distances are calculated from). This is then substantially reduced as you focus closer, depending on your lens focal length and focus movement.
A +2 lens has a focal length of 500mm, and will take you down to that distance for starters, and then much closer as you focus down. +3 starts at 333mm, and +4 at 250mm, and so on.
Canon converts dioptres to focal length in mm, hence their 500D lens is a 500mm +2 dioptre lens, and 250D is 250mm +4 dioptres. I'm guessing that Rayox is the same.
The D in the Canon spec stands for Doublet, which means they are not just one simple meniscus lens like the regular Hoya and B+W jobbies, but two lenses fused together which gives much better optical performance. Canon Bob above says they're pretty good, so I think you can say safely say that they are, and certainly much better than the single lens ones. Better as in sharper edge definition I would think is a safe assumption, as this is where the singlets go wrong when you get over +3 dioptres or so.
There's generally a bit of snobbery about close-up lenses and folks are reluctant to put a £20 lens in front of their £1k L. It must be rubbish, right? But they are really handy and good so long as you don't go mad and expect them to replace a true macro lens. Stopped down to f/8 or so, you will be hard pressed to know they're there.
jgs001
Brian Cox
- Messages
- 12,646
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting info... The Raynox DCR250 is a triplet lens so even more glass, but that should also reduce CA effects I guess., equally I don't have any L glass so the thought of sticking a £30 lens in front of a £180 lens is not so much of an issue 
...
...
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Just been checking out Raynox and I'm thinking that the DCR-250 will vignette with lenses like mine (70-200 4) getting near the 67mm maximum fit. The actual size of the glass is only 43mm. Well worth a punt for smaller lenses at the price though
(that's a guess - never used them).You're right, the DCR-250 is +8 dioptres and 250 refers to some kind of magnification estimate (2.5x?) with longer lenses as you say. Less powerful DCR-150 is +4.8 dioptres.
They also do a thing called the DCR-5320 which is much wider fit. It's a +2 and a +3 dioptre twin lens kit, which gives +5 when used together. Not sure I'm happy with sticking that much cheap glass in front of my lens, even if they are nicely coated doublets and triplets (or am I being snobbish
). They would surely be good one at a time though, except that the kit costs £250.
- Messages
- 1,175
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just been checking out Raynox and I'm thinking that the DCR-250 will vignette with lenses like mine (70-200 4) getting near the 67mm maximum fit. The actual size of the glass is only 43mm. Well worth a punt for smaller lenses at the price though
.
That was my thinking in getting the 77mm 500D because I didn't want to be limited by that should I use it later on a bigger diameter lens, but in practice I find I usually crop out whatever would have been affected by vignetting. I was also concerned about losing so much light.
I've not used the Raynox, but I imagine much the same happens, though you do have a higher magnification I think, so perhaps don't need to crop as much.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Lots of handy info coming out of this thread
The comments about vignetting in practise are really useful. It figures, only using the central portion of the lens at longer focal lengths, and you wouldn't want to use it at the shorter range anyway.How do you get on with that lens combination jgs? Do you think it's an optical bargain, or long for a pukka macro lens?
Another question if you don't mind. You can't use a lens hood with the Raynox adaptor, and it makes the whole thing just a bit too big for my shirt pocket
Can you unscrew the lens, and mount it into a step-up ring?
OP
- Messages
- 991
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheers for all the feedback, guys! some really interesting stuff 
At the moment thought I'm working on a mega small budget. what type of results would I get from the screw-on type "Close-up" filters? I found these on 7dayshop.
For the price I'm not expecting anything special, but just for playing around until I have some more cash.
what sort of results do you think I'd get if i was to take a gamble on these? and what is the deal with stacking to increase diopter?
would i just be better going for the Raynox dcr-250? will that work straight out of the box with my lens, or will i need additional mountings, etc?
some really interesting stuff At the moment thought I'm working on a mega small budget. what type of results would I get from the screw-on type "Close-up" filters? I found these on 7dayshop.
For the price I'm not expecting anything special, but just for playing around until I have some more cash.
what sort of results do you think I'd get if i was to take a gamble on these? and what is the deal with stacking to increase diopter?
would i just be better going for the Raynox dcr-250? will that work straight out of the box with my lens, or will i need additional mountings, etc?
Think the Raynox will fit with no extra rings etc, a few weeks back in Amateur Photography magazine there was an excellent image taken using a 18-55mm kit lens with a Raynox fitted. Suppose its like most things the more you use it the better/easier it will become? another alternative would be to buy a cheap M42 macro lens and get an adaptor? I have a few old M42 Sigma's and they work fine for Macro/close up stuff.Cheers for all the feedback, guys!
At the moment thought I'm working on a mega small budget. what type of results would I get from the screw-on type "Close-up" filters? I found these on 7dayshop.
For the price I'm not expecting anything special, but just for playing around until I have some more cash.
what sort of results do you think I'd get if i was to take a gamble on these? and what is the deal with stacking to increase diopter?
would i just be better going for the Raynox dcr-250? will that work straight out of the box with my lens, or will i need additional mountings, etc?
Cheers
Brian
OP
- Messages
- 991
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm guessing that's a Canon your talking about, is it? can you get adaptor rings to fit Nikon with sigma interface? I have a (very) old skool Sigma macro lens that my dad used to use on a 35mm film SLR.
An adjustable Raynox sounds good as i'd be able to use it on my kit lens too. anyone know of a particular model that will accommodate 52mm and 77mm? I don't suppose so
Aye mine's Canon, the adaptor rings are for M42 (screw thread) fit lenses that they used to fit on lots of film slrs including Nikon's. If you do a search for M42 lenses on Ebay you will find loads. Not sure exact sizes the Raynox fits but there's a few guys on here have them.I'm guessing that's a Canon your talking about, is it? can you get adaptor rings to fit Nikon with sigma interface? I have a (very) old skool Sigma macro lens that my dad used to use on a 35mm film SLR.
An adjustable Raynox sounds good as i'd be able to use it on my kit lens too. anyone know of a particular model that will accommodate 52mm and 77mm? I don't suppose so
Cheers
brian
Ps Don't think there's a Sigma mount adaptor available?
OP
- Messages
- 991
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep that's the sort of thing! cheap as chips too?
yep! I have one very similar for my Canon, best double check with other Nikon users before you buy one though but they certainly work fine on my Canon 350d and other Canon EOS camera's. maybe someone else on here can help regarding Nikons? They are great for playing around with and once you get used to manual focusing you will get some great shots.
Cheers
Brian
ps There are usually loads of M42 lenses on Ebay etc and also in Freeads/Yeller/Loot etc your best bet is to get an adaptor of Ebay for a fiver and go to a second hand camera shop and try some out, I'm sure they'll let you try the macro's out in shop
quick shot taken with an old Sigma 80-100mm M42 lens (not a macro) manual focus on a Canon 350d, I'm not right good at manual focus but its not too bad
I'll take some with the Sigma M42 macro tomorrow and post them.Cheers
Brian
ps that lens cost me £8.00 + £3.00 postage on Ebay bargain or what?
They WILL focus much sharper than my crappy image, the macro lens is a gem and I even won a Panasonic FX33 with a photo taken on the £10.00 Sigma in Digital Camera magazine Comp a couple of years ago, Ok some people will slag it off but am i bothered? Nah! I have a new Tamron 90mm that cost me £300 and i'd say there's not much difference between them in decent light.Awesome
I use a Benbo Trekker for Close Up stuff and an L angle finder which i find helps with manual focusing.
Cheers
Brian
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Before everyone gets carried away with cheap old film camera lenses be aware that they are not only manual focus (not much of a problem for macro) but also manual aperture control. This is a big problem with macro as you have to hold the camera position absolutely still between focusing and closing the aperture down manually. Very difficult without a tripod, unless you're an octopus.
You will also need a camera adaptor. Sometimes it's not possible to focus on ininity, again obviously not a problem with macro, but some adaptors have a simple lens in them to make this possible. These are expensive and will do image quality no favours at all. Adaptors are available from lots of places, but if these people don't have one, it doesn't exist. http://www.srb-griturn.com/
You will also need a camera adaptor. Sometimes it's not possible to focus on ininity, again obviously not a problem with macro, but some adaptors have a simple lens in them to make this possible. These are expensive and will do image quality no favours at all. Adaptors are available from lots of places, but if these people don't have one, it doesn't exist. http://www.srb-griturn.com/
- Messages
- 2,113
- Edit My Images
- Yes
raynox dcr-250 group on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/
i just sold my one to a member here as ive stopped using my kit 18-55 lens and won't fit my replacement lens (72mm filter thread). Also got some extension tubes as well to use with my fifty. The Raynox wont vignette (on a crop body) til you get below 50mm so at 55mm it is fine. Of course, you need longer focal lengths for more magnification. You'l see on the flickr group very nice quality shots but most are focal length around 70mm and seems popular more on bridge cameras...
i just sold my one to a member here as ive stopped using my kit 18-55 lens and won't fit my replacement lens (72mm filter thread). Also got some extension tubes as well to use with my fifty. The Raynox wont vignette (on a crop body) til you get below 50mm so at 55mm it is fine. Of course, you need longer focal lengths for more magnification. You'l see on the flickr group very nice quality shots but most are focal length around 70mm and seems popular more on bridge cameras...
The Canon FD to EF adaptor needs the lens to focus on infinity but the M42's work fine with the M42 to EF adaptor's on Ebay for around a fiver (you can also get the adaptor with AF confirm on to help with manual focusing these are around £10-£15)
I tend to just stick the 350d in AV manual focus and take the shot (not very technical but does the job)LoL
jgs001
Brian Cox
- Messages
- 12,646
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hoppy, I seem to be doing well with the IQ... Here's a couple of examples..This is the DCR250 on my 55-250... mixed focal lengths. The longer end has two benefits... Magnification (about 2.5x at 250mm) and working distance, the downside is the DOF disappears to practically nothing.... I think for a cheap way to get into Macro it's a real bargain and worth grabbing one, especially given the ease I can swap back and forth between macro and telephoto, the Raynox mount unclips and fit's neatly in the palm of my hand.
96mm
These are of the same spider, shot with a Jessops 300AFD (I hadn't made my ring flash converter thingy at this point)
100mm
250mm
96mm
These are of the same spider, shot with a Jessops 300AFD (I hadn't made my ring flash converter thingy at this point)
100mm
250mm
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Looking at those, it's hard not to be impressed
I'm a lens snob, and part of me says you can't tell much from a low res screen image, and I bet the edges aren't as sharp as they would be with a £400 proper macro, and it'll have CA at wide apertures, and and and...
But the other part of me says they look pretty damn good, and with depth of field at 3mm or less, 90% of the frame is going to be out of focus anyway, so who cares if the MTF graphs for edge performance slip a bit?
And it's another victory for the EF-S 55-250 which is a fabulous little lens. It costs a quarter of the price I've just paid for a 70-200L. Against my better judgement
All for £30. That's a heck of a good deal.
jgs001
Brian Cox
- Messages
- 12,646
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's a bit of CA creeps in when pixel peeping on my 20" imac when viewed at 100%, and I'm sure a proper macro lens would do a far better job, but bearing in mind these aren't crops, I reckon, printed out at A3 would be fine. Other shots with the 55-250 at 30"x20" have come out well.
If you'd like me to, I'll export one of those at higher res and see if I can upload it somewhere.
If you'd like me to, I'll export one of those at higher res and see if I can upload it somewhere.
very nice! how did you get them to stay still? every time i try the buggers run off!Hoppy, I seem to be doing well with the IQ... Here's a couple of examples..This is the DCR250 on my 55-250... mixed focal lengths. The longer end has two benefits... Magnification (about 2.5x at 250mm) and working distance, the downside is the DOF disappears to practically nothing.... I think for a cheap way to get into Macro it's a real bargain and worth grabbing one, especially given the ease I can swap back and forth between macro and telephoto, the Raynox mount unclips and fit's neatly in the palm of my hand.
96mm
These are of the same spider, shot with a Jessops 300AFD (I hadn't made my ring flash converter thingy at this point)
100mm
250mm
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Claymore... Persistence
NP Hoppy.
When they run so do I!!!!!!!!! I'm scared of the critters
Not very brave eh? LoL
Chaz Photos
Jack Elam
- Messages
- 6,283
- Name
- Chaz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's useful to know Bob. Always wondered if they were any good. Shame they are only available in a few sizes (not including 67mm
7dayshop have all size 49mm to 77mm
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Regular close up lenses yes, but not the better (and more expesnive) Canon doublet lenses.
A trick for stopping creepy crawlies from creeping and crawling, is to put them in the fridge for a bit. I think the freezer kills them.
OP
- Messages
- 991
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sorry to drag open an old thread again, chaps. I've just been wondering what the best option would be :
1) Raynox dcr-250 on my 18-55 kit lens?
2) 72mm 67mm Step Down Ring for my 70-300mm VR with a Raynox dcr-250? (if that would work????)
3) get an M42 macro lens and adaptor?
what's the general opinion???
1) Raynox dcr-250 on my 18-55 kit lens?
2) 72mm 67mm Step Down Ring for my 70-300mm VR with a Raynox dcr-250? (if that would work????)
3) get an M42 macro lens and adaptor?
what's the general opinion???