which brand would you suggest for close-up filters?

[bnnrcn]

Which brand would you suggest for close-up filters.I know they work similar to macro lenses but they are not the same thing.Can you upload some photos which were taken with different grades such as +1,+4....

[Black Pearl]

None.
What camera do you have so we can point you at a set of compatible extension tubes?

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for warnıng,my camera is Canon 1100D

None.
What camera do you have so we can point you at a set of compatible extension tubes?

[Inkanyezi]

It isn't really a matter of brands, but more of choosing the right tool for the job, which will depend on what to do with it.

Close-up lenses can be a very good addition to a superzoom or tele zoom, so that it would work also on short distances, in order to take small things.

For the normal zoom that usually comes with a system camera, mostly 18-55 mm or similar, close-up lenses are not worth considering, as those lenses focus very close without any extra accessory.

When it comes to what close-up lens to get, it depends on which lens you want to put it on.

Say you have for example a Nikon camera with a zoom 55-200 mm that focuses down to 1.1 m. The close limit for the lens corresponds to putting a +1 close-up lens on it, hence if you use a close-up lens, the focusing span will be +1 diopter. I.e. with a +1 diopter lens, you will have a span between +1 and +2 diopters, that can be fine-tuned with the AF of the camera. That is roughly 1,1 m to 60 cm, effectively doubling its reproduction scale with a reasonable large working distance. If you put a +2 diopter lens on it, the span will be +2 to +3 diopters, with a working distance from 50 cm in front of the lens to 33 cm. And with a +3 diopter lens, you still have +1 diopter to focus, so the span would be from +3 to +4 diopters, or 33 cm to 25 cm; still a reasonable working distance for bugs and large enough span to easily find focus. If I were to use close-up lenses for that lens, I would get one cheap +1 diopter lens and one substantially more expensive achromatic +3 diopter lens.

And there is what to look for rather than brands, that the close-up lens, if stronger than +2 diopters, should be achromatic, otherwise images will not be sharp.

Looking at another suitable lens for attaching close-up lenses, the 18-105 mm from Nikon, that focuses down to 45 cm from the sensor (about 30 cm in front of the lens). This corresponds to a focusing span of +3 diopters, so +1 or +2 would be meaningless. A close-up lens +3 would focus from 33 cm down to about 18 cm from the lens, a reasonable working distance, and a large zoom span to adjust size. If I had such a lens, I would only get one achromatic +3 close-up lens for it.

So it comes down to what lens you wish to use it for. If brands should matter, a +1 or +2 simple lens could be no-name or whatever, provided it has multi-coating, although HOYA are known to have superior coating, and B&W have better rings made of brass. Aluminium is more prone to stick and be difficult to remove. When it comes to +3 and above, Canon has a couple of very good achromatic close-up lenses, +2 and +4 diopters. Dörr markets +3 and +5 diopter achromats in various sizes.

Close-up lenses can give results comparable to other ways of shooting, extension rings or a macro lens, provided the subject matter is nature objects. However they are unsuitable for flat objects or rectilinear reproduction, due to optical errors as field curvature and distortion.

So, first tell me on what long zoom lens you want to use the close-up lens, and what close focus distance it has, and what subject matter you intend to photograph with it. Then I can suggest what close-up lens to use with it.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Urban,I have got tamron 17-50 which I can focus from min.27 cm and I have got tamron 70-300 VC which has got 1.5 meter (150 cm) of min.focus distance.According to what you said I think I don't need a close-up filter for 17-50 and my 70-300 can work like a macro if put a +3 close-up on it.This is what I understand,am I right?I want to shoot flowers,bugs etc.I have nothing to do with flat objects.I like nature..There is also a +10 close-up,what is this for?

What do you think about extension tubes?Are they better alternatives than close-up filters.

It isn't really a matter of brands, but more of choosing the right tool for the job, which will depend on what to do with it.

Close-up lenses can be a very good addition to a superzoom or tele zoom, so that it would work also on short distances, in order to take small things.

For the normal zoom that usually comes with a system camera, mostly 18-55 mm or similar, close-up lenses are not worth considering, as those lenses focus very close without any extra accessory.

When it comes to what close-up lens to get, it depends on which lens you want to put it on.

Say you have for example a Nikon camera with a zoom 55-200 mm that focuses down to 1.1 m. The close limit for the lens corresponds to putting a +1 close-up lens on it, hence if you use a close-up lens, the focusing span will be +1 diopter. I.e. with a +1 diopter lens, you will have a span between +1 and +2 diopters, that can be fine-tuned with the AF of the camera. That is roughly 1,1 m to 60 cm, effectively doubling its reproduction scale with a reasonable large working distance. If you put a +2 diopter lens on it, the span will be +2 to +3 diopters, with a working distance from 50 cm in front of the lens to 33 cm. And with a +3 diopter lens, you still have +1 diopter to focus, so the span would be from +3 to +4 diopters, or 33 cm to 25 cm; still a reasonable working distance for bugs and large enough span to easily find focus. If I were to use close-up lenses for that lens, I would get one cheap +1 diopter lens and one substantially more expensive achromatic +3 diopter lens.

And there is what to look for rather than brands, that the close-up lens, if stronger than +2 diopters, should be achromatic, otherwise images will not be sharp.

Looking at another suitable lens for attaching close-up lenses, the 18-105 mm from Nikon, that focuses down to 45 cm from the sensor (about 30 cm in front of the lens). This corresponds to a focusing span of +3 diopters, so +1 or +2 would be meaningless. A close-up lens +3 would focus from 33 cm down to about 18 cm from the lens, a reasonable working distance, and a large zoom span to adjust size. If I had such a lens, I would only get one achromatic +3 close-up lens for it.

So it comes down to what lens you wish to use it for. If brands should matter, a +1 or +2 simple lens could be no-name or whatever, provided it has multi-coating, although HOYA are known to have superior coating, and B&W have better rings made of brass. Aluminium is more prone to stick and be difficult to remove. When it comes to +3 and above, Canon has a couple of very good achromatic close-up lenses, +2 and +4 diopters. Dörr markets +3 and +5 diopter achromats in various sizes.

Close-up lenses can give results comparable to other ways of shooting, extension rings or a macro lens, provided the subject matter is nature objects. However they are unsuitable for flat objects or rectilinear reproduction, due to optical errors as field curvature and distortion.

So, first tell me on what long zoom lens you want to use the close-up lens, and what close focus distance it has, and what subject matter you intend to photograph with it. Then I can suggest what close-up lens to use with it.

[Saorsa]

Canon makes apochromat lenses desiognated the 250D and 500D. The one to choose depends on the lens you intend to use it with. The 250D is for shorter focal lengths and the 500D for telephoto.

I have a brief blog item on apochromats and 'closeup filters' at http://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/2010...iopter-lenses/

Here is an examples using the old Leitz ELPRO on a Nikon V1





and a Raynox 150 on a Nikon V1 with the FT-1 and 55-200mm VR


If the Canon is a bit too expensive you might want to consider the Raynox 150 on your telezoom. Because of it's type of mounting it will fit a variety of lenses. I have used it on my P7100 P&S, Nikon 1 and various lenses on other bodies.

[JR1]

Which brand would you suggest for close-up filters.I know they work similar to macro lenses but they are not the same thing.Can you upload some photos which were taken with different grades such as +1,+4....

No hesitation in fact even though I have my 100mm canon I still use my Cokin P close up lenses (not filters) as they do not "filter"

[Inkanyezi]

Hi Urban,I have got tamron 17-50 which I can focus from min.27 cm and I have got tamron 70-300 VC which has got 1.5 meter (150 cm) of min.focus distance.According to what you said I think I don't need a close-up filter for 17-50 and my 70-300 can work like a macro if put a +3 close-up on it.This is what I understand,am I right?I want to shoot flowers,bugs etc.I have nothing to do with flat objects.I like nature..There is also a +10 close-up,what is this for?

What do you think about extension tubes?Are they better alternatives than close-up filters.

The best alternative in your case would be to get a macro lens, one that has one focal length only and can focus down to life size. Those don't come cheap, and it is yet another lens for your set.

Second best might be a close-up lens for the 70-300 zoom, but as it has a rather narrow focusing span, less than one diopter, you must be pretty sure to hit the correct distance when shooting. (At the close limit, measure from the front end of the lens to the focused distance. Focus distances are always from the sensor plane. You divide one metre with the distance from the front of the lens to the near limit, to get the diopter value for your focus span.)

So if you choose a +3 close-up lens, remember it must be achromatic to render sharp images. As the focus span is small, you will only be able to focus between about 33 cm and 28 cm from the front of your lens with the +3 diopter lens. I think I would rather prefer a +2 diopter achromat, as the Canon 500D for that tele zoom, but it is more expensive than the Dörr +3 achromat. The Canon 500D close-up lens would let you focus between about 50 cm and 40 cm from the front end of the lens.

The +10 lens that often comes in kits of three or four close-up lenses cannot deliver sharp images. It is a toy, not a photographic tool, unless you're into lomography.

[rpcrowe]

I would not necessarily suggest using a close-up lens for any amount of dedicated close-up and macro photography. Dedicated macro lenses and/or extension tubes are really better for that purpose.

However, a close-up lens is a nice addition to a travel kit when you just want to take an occasional picture at a closer distance than your lens allows. Th nice thing about close-up lenses is that they are easy to carry and easy to use. The just fit on the front of your lens and you don't have to go through the trouble of taking off the lens, attaching the extension tube and then reattaching the lens OR you don't have to carry an additional macro lens in your kit.

The Canon 250 and 500 close-up lenses are pretty much the cream of the crop. However, they are pretty expensive. See these Amazon.com prices for the Canon 500D.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_4ur9wakcg1_e

Considering that I purchased a used Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF SP Macro Lens for less than $100 (USD) several years ago, I am not sure that the Canon Close Up lens is a good value for the price...

What about third party or eBay close-up lenses? You cannot expect a lens that costs $17 (USD) for a set of four to provide the same quality imagery as a close-up lens that costs well over a hundred USD. Or can you

Well, I purchased a no-name 77mm close-up lens, on a whim, at my photo group's annual rummage sale. Does it work? Yes! Does it work well? Kind of? Does it provide excellent results? Well no! Will I keep it to occasionally use for close-up shots when I am traveling? Yes, I am keeping it in my travel kit!

Here is a shot with my el-cheapo macro lens. The lighting on these coins is not great.



I used the same lighting setup for the coins as I did to shoot this fishing streamer with my 90mm Tamron Macro Lens. It should be obvious that the Tamron produces better quality than the close-up lens. Look at the lint on the fly tying vise and the tiny hairs on the hook.



Something that I have not tried is shooting a test with the naked lens as close as possible and then cropping the center out of the image to match the coverage of the lens + closeup lens. I have any number of tests that I plan to do but, that I have been too lazy to accomplish.

I know that I have been somewhat ambiguous in this posting. To sum it up: The no-name close-up lens probably produces decent quality for the occasional close-up image and is certainly less expensive (I think that I paid under five U.S. Dollars for my copy) and is certainly lighter and more easily transportable than my 90mm Tamron Macro but, the macro certainly produces better imagery and I would choose the macro when doing a lot of dedicated macro work...

Would the Canon close-up lenses produce better results? I suspect that they would. However, the Canon 250 and 500 close-up lenses are quite expensive. If I were on a budget and wanted to do macro work, I would look for a used dedicated macro lens. Even a older manual focus lens with an adapter might produce better results than a close-up lens. I might also consider a set of good (Kenko or similar) extension tubes. I would however want a set of tubes that have electrical connections between the lens and the camera.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you very much Urban,what I understand from this conversation is that I have to buy a macro lens.Even a second hand macro lens looks better than the other alternatives..

The best alternative in your case would be to get a macro lens, one that has one focal lengtth only and can focus down to life size. Those don't come cheap, and it is yet another lens for your set.

Second best might be a close-up lens for the 70-300 zoom, but as it has a rather narrow focusing span, less than one diopter. (At the close limit, measure from the front end of the lens to the focused distance. Focus distances are always from the sensor plane. You divide one metre with the distance from the front of the lens to the near limit, to get the diopter value for your focus span.)

So if you choose a +3 cöpse-up lens, remember it must be achromatic to render sharp images. As the focus span is small, you will only be able to focus between about 33 cm and 28 cm from the front of your lens with the +3 diopter lens. I think I would rather prefer a +2 diopter achromat, as the Canon 500D for that tele zoom, but it is more expensive than the Dörr +3 achromat. The Canon 500D close-up lens would let you focus between about 50 cm and 40 cm from the front end of the lens.

The +10 lens that often comes in kits of three or four close-up lenses cannot deliver sharp images. It is a toy, not a photographic tool, unless you're into lomography.

[Colin Southern]

I use a Canon 500D close-up adaptor - works fine.



They also have a 250D for shorter lenses.

[Inkanyezi]

Thanks Colin for confirmation.

It really boils down to value for the money and versatility. If a close-up lens is a hundred quid and you get a macro for just a little more, the attachment might not be worth it if your original lens has rather little focus span.

Extension tubes have been suggested, but there are serious drawbacks as well as benefits. They are generally not very suitable for zoom lenses, particularly the short normal zoom, where working distances become too small. There is also hardly any room for fine-tuning focus with them, but the camera or subject is moved back and forth to acquire focus. Modern cameras are often difficult to focus that way. It works best when the lens it is used on has a large focusing span. With extension tubes, focus changes rapidly when zooming, which can be used as a method of focusing, but might also be quite annoying. Even the shortest 20 mm extension places focus behind the front element when at the wide end of a lens that is 18 mm in the WA end. It is very difficult to find focus with extension tubes. With a reasonably chosen close-up lens, the system works normally; AF for fine tuning, stabilisation and zoom as well.

So I would not hesitate to recommend an achromatic close-up lens for the 18-105, 18-135 or 18-200 lenses, but precaution should be applied with a tele zoom if it has a narrow focusing span.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin for confirmation.

It really boils down to value for the money and versatility. If a close-up lens is a hundred quid and you get a macro for just a little more, the attachment might not be worth it if your original lens has rather little focus span.

Extension tubes have been suggested, but there are serious drawbacks as well as benefits. They are generally not very suitable for zoom lenses, particularly the short normal zoom, where working distances become too small. There is also hardly any room for fine-tuning focus with them, but the camera or subject is moved back and forth to acquire focus. Modern cameras are often difficult to focus that way. It works best when the lens it is used on has a large focusing span. With extension tubes, focus changes rapidly when zooming, which can be used as a method of focusing, but might also be quite annoying. Even the shortest 20 mm extension places focus behind the front element when at the wide end of a lens that is 18 mm in the WA end. It is very difficult to find focus with extension tubes. With a reasonably chosen close-up lens, the system works normally; AF for fine tuning, stabilisation and zoom as well.

So I would not hesitate to recommend an achromatic close-up lens for the 18-105, 18-135 or 18-200 lenses, but precaution should be applied with a tele zoom if it has a narrow focusing span.

Yes - on a 70-200, the 500D has a focal range of only between around 30 to 45cm.

It's no substitute for a macro lens.

[bnnrcn]

Was this shot post processed Colin,it looks pretty good?

I use a Canon 500D close-up adaptor - works fine.



They also have a 250D for shorter lenses.

[Colin Southern]

Was this shot post processed Colin,it looks pretty good?

Just the usual.

[Inkanyezi]

Was this shot post processed Colin,it looks pretty good?

You might note, if you go into the EXIF data of the image, that it is shot at a very small aperture (f/32) with a long exposure (20 s). Under controlled circumstances one can do that, and with the achromatic close-up lens it works well. However with a simple close-up lens of the same power, chromatic aberration will not be cancelled out by stopping down, and the image would be softer with colour fringing off centre. What Colin demonstrates is that you can get good results with an achromatic close-up lens. For nature subjects, other optical errors that remain also in the achromat are not important (coma, distortion and curvature of field).

The small aperture is often necessary at very close distance, to get desired depth of field.

[Nass]

Fab shot Colin

[rpcrowe]

I have not use this lens but, have read some rather nice reports about the image quality. I am just mentioning this as an possible alternative to a name-brand macro lens...

http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?ali...f35-macro-lens

If it works, it might be a decent investment for the casual macro-shooter. It costs about the same as the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark II "Nifty Fifty"...

[Tom47]

I have a Canon D500 close-up filter that I use on my Nikon 70-300MM lens as part of my travel gear. It has produced some great photos when I have not packed my 105MM Nikon macro lens. I never leave home without it is always in my backpack.

[Letrow]

I have used Hoya, but to be honest, I don't like close-up filters. It's a solution for situations when nothing else (e.g. macro lens) is available, but it restricts your focusing as far as my experience goes.