Potentially Daft Macro Question

GrittyShaker

GrittyShaker

Messages
1,424
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I'm looking to get some macro filters for the kit lens, to use until I can afford a dedicated lens for the job.

Am I right in thinking that I'll be relying on manual focus, as it'll be outside of the lens's focal range?

Also, are there any particular filters you would recommend, or are the cheapie, Ebay specials as good (or, indeed, bad) as any other?

Cheers. :)
 
Too late!

They're not actually filters, but supplementary close-up lenses. They just fit in to the filter thread.

They will AF fine, but if you go really close most people find manual focusing is easier, by rocking gently back and forth rather than by twiddling the lens.

How close do you want to go? Just a bit closer, get a Hoya +2 close-up lens for £20, pretty close Raynox DCR-150 £40, very close 1:1 Raynox DCR-250 £45.
 
HoppyUK said:
Too late!

They're not actually filters, but supplementary close-up lenses. They just fit in to the filter thread.

They will AF fine, but if you go really close most people find manual focusing is easier, by rocking gently back and forth rather than by twiddling the lens.

How close do you want to go? Just a bit closer, get a Hoya +2 close-up lens for £20, pretty close Raynox DCR-150 £40, very close 1:1 Raynox DCR-250 £45.
Click to expand...
Thanks. :) I know they're not actually filters, but that's what they seem to be called all over Ebay, so I thought it was acceptable terminology. :p

I'm thinking "very close", so £45 it is.

Is using the close-up lenses anything like using a dedicated macro lens, aside from the lessened image quality? Reason being is that if I enjoy the close-up stuff I'll get a proper lens, but if not then I won't bother. But will I be deluded by the Raynox, and put off macro photography when, in fact, I would like it if I had a proper lens?

Hope that makes sense. :cuckoo:
 
ecniv said:
Not sure on the canon side but if you have a browse through the flickr link you can see some 105 mm 1:1 macro shots. Some with cheapo extension tubes
Click to expand...

When you say the Flickr link, do you mean your Flickr link? Just did a search on Flickr for Raynox DCR-250. There are some lovely shots out there. :thumbs:
 
GrittyShaker said:
Thanks. :) I know they're not actually filters, but that's what they seem to be called all over Ebay, so I thought it was acceptable terminology. :p

I'm thinking "very close", so £45 it is.

Is using the close-up lenses anything like using a dedicated macro lens, aside from the lessened image quality? Reason being is that if I enjoy the close-up stuff I'll get a proper lens, but if not then I won't bother. But will I be deluded by the Raynox, and put off macro photography when, in fact, I would like it if I had a proper lens?

Hope that makes sense. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

I know everyone calls them filters but I'm running a one-man campaign. There's enough confusing and ambiguous terminology in photography as it is and I shall see it through to the European Court of Pernickety Bu99ers if I have to :D

Thing about the Raynox is it's really cheap and so easy to use. And if you don't like it, it will sell in the Classified section in minutes. If it cost £100 most people would have no doubts about it, just as they don't with the Canon 500D and 250D close up lenses that cost a heck of a lot more and are frankly nothing very special - good, but still not a substitute for a pukka macro lens.

Close-up lenses have another advantage in that they work differently in optical terms to macro lenses or extension tubes and don't require any exposure adjustment when going really close - the other options need an extra two stops at 1:1.

Unless you know now (or after having checked a few thousand images on Flikr first) for sure that the Raynox option is not for you, then get one and give it a go. It will cost you next to nothing and you might get a very nice surprise. At the very least you will learn a lot and know what macro lens you want to go for, or maybe a set of tubes (Kenko full auto for £120).
 
Go for extension tubes - you don't need a different one for every filter-ring size. I use them all the time in the studio.
 
The Raynox will fit (using the universal adapter) lenses with filter threads between 49mm and 67mm (from memory), and a very simple way (if out and about) to convert a telephoto into a passable macro lens and back again, without changing, or removing the lens. A set of extention tubes are great, but you'll be paying something like double the cost of the raynox for some where you can control the lens, and the cheapy ebay ones don't allow you that control so are a real so and so to use (I've got some....)
 
jgs001 said:
The Raynox will fit (using the universal adapter) lenses with filter threads between 49mm and 67mm (from memory), and a very simple way (if out and about) to convert a telephoto into a passable macro lens and back again, without changing, or removing the lens. A set of extention tubes are great, but you'll be paying something like double the cost of the raynox for some where you can control the lens, and the cheapy ebay ones don't allow you that control so are a real so and so to use (I've got some....)
Click to expand...

After browsing Ebay, and Googling for info, they're pretty much the two main things that have made my decision for me. For now, at least.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions. :thumbs:
 
Ebay close-up lenses are quite good for the price and are very handy to try out Macro shots without spending a great deal of money.

This shot was taken on a 350D with a +10 dioptre close up lens fitted to the 18-55mm kit lens:

​

Close up lenses give better results on short focal length lenses.

And this one with a +4 dioptre fitted to the 18-55mm kit lens:

​
 
GrittyShaker said:
Impressive. :) Are those the ones that are about a tenner for a set of four?
Click to expand...

Yes - I think mine were about £15 about 4 years ago.

I now have a set of Kenko tubes (the auto ones) which are also very good indeed.
 
GrittyShaker said:
Nuts to it, I'll get some of those as well then. :D Rude not to for the price. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No probs, glad to help.

Two points to note though - using these lenses (especially the +10 dioptre one means that you will have very little DOF - get used to lots of your pics being out of focus.

As I already said these lenses work better with short focal length lenses but you also should only use them with lenses that have a relatively small front lens - mine are 58mm fitting.

I bought a set of 67 mm lenses for the 17-85mm Canon lens but they do not give as good results with the +10 dioptre being very poor.
 
Duly noted. :) I'm under no illusion that these are not going to replace a proper macro lens. You get what you pay for, as they say. For the money spent, I'm sure they'll be more than adequate.
 
I can definately recommend the Raynox clip on lenses - If you are going to get one I would go for the 250 version.

If it helps these are a couple of shots taken with my Raynox 250 - not the best but you get the idea:





Oh and I feel compelled to warn you that macro is VERY VERY addictive!!

Have fun with whatever you go for :thumbs:
 
Excellent work, and thanks for posting. :thumbs:

I'm certain I will be hooked on macro togging very quickly. Macro shots with my P&S were always my favourites, so heaven knows how keen I'll be with the DSLR. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top