About MACRO filters and lenses

[Kisy]

Hi there!

I'm new behind a DSLR camera, so I found this site and I hope I'll learn more. I have a Canon 1100d with 18-55 f3.5 lens. I would appreciate if you could share with me some of your knowledge. And thanks in advance!

So, I am very interested in macro photography (I'm a biologist, I really like to see nature in close-up). I was reading a tutorial about macro photography (https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...es-closeup.htm) and then I got confused when I read that macro filters "Causes your lens to lose the ability to focus on distant objects."

Perhaps my English is not working here, or perhaps I just misunderstood. Then, just to check, with your help I hope: macro filters causes our lens to lose the ability to focus on distant objects TEMPORARILY, right? Because... if you're using a macro filter or a tube, you WISH not to focus on distant objects. But is there any way to permanently damage my lens by just using macro filters?

Thank you!!!

Kisy.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Kisy,

You are correct in that by using a 'Close Up filter' or 'Tubes' this only 'Temporarily' stops the ability to focus on distant subjects whilst they are fitted.

Their use can not damage your lens.

Grahame

[Manfred M]

Hi Kisy, welcome to CiC - the effect is only when you are using the supplemental lenses (what you refer to as a macro filter) or extension tubes. Think of it like putting reading glasses on and then trying to look into the distance, everything far away will be blurry.

One word of caution, especially when dealing with supplemental lenses; make sure that they do not come in contact with the front element of your lens, as if they do, you can definitely scratch it.

[Saorsa]

Close up filters or achromat lenses are really nice to have around for casual macros. It isn't going to take the place of a really good macro lens that will focus from Infinity to 1:1 magnification but I like to have one in my bag when out walking about.

Here is an example of an opportunity. I was out for a morning walk with my Nikon V1 over my shoulder and an old Leitz ELPRO two element achromat in my pocket. I found a great spiderweb.


Now, where is a spider web, there is a spider. In this case it is the little olive colored spot at the juncture of two flower stems. Once I found it, I wanted a close up so I put the ELPRO onto the lens. I couldn't get the spiderweb in the picture anymore. As it turns out, I had a lot of trouble getting the spider too. It was obviously keeping an eye on me and managed to be behind something no matter what I did. Here is the best shot I got. Compare it's size to the size in the original.



I really wanted a shot of that olive back too.

But, as soon as I gave up and took the ELPRO off, I was right back to my normal focus range.

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Brian above. Macro filters/close-up lenses are light weight and best f all quick to put on and remove. Therefore, they are handy to have in a travel kit but, IMO, will not take the place of a dedicated macro lens or a set of extension tubes.

As far as the choice between extension tubes and a macro lens, I would recommend a "true" macro lens over extension ubes because a true macro lens can focus from infinity down to 1:1 or 1:2 depending on the lens...

[Kisy]

Hi Grahame, Manfred, Brian and Richard!! Thanks for the welcome, for the answers and the advices so far.

Brian, you got a beautiful spiderweb and its tiny little architect. Thanks for sharing.

I guess I'll begin with the close-up filters, then the tubes and perhaps the macro lens. I hope to learn soon!

[Mac Jones]

Hi,
I am having a Canon EOS 600D with 18-55 mm kit lens. how can i use it with macro photography, by using it with filters?

And also

I am Planning to buy a lens for Macro photography, Please help me.

[RichardTaylor]

Hello Mac,
Just attach the filter to your lens. You probaly will not be shooting true macro ("1:1") however you will be shooting a lot closer.
As mentioned above you will not be able to focus on distant subjects.

Re buying a new lens for macro photography. What is your budget and what do you want to shoot?
Keep in mind you may also need a tripod for some macro work.

Have a look at some of the tutorials under using cameras and equipment on this site.

You may also find this thread, over a Digital Photography School, of interest.

http://digital-photography-school.co...ro-budget.html

[steve welle]

Hi,
I am having a Canon EOS 600D with 18-55 mm kit lens. how can i use it with macro photography, by using it with filters?

And also

I am Planning to buy a lens for Macro photography, Please help me.

Vivek: as noted earlier in this thread you can get started with macro shots relatively inexpensively with magnifying lenses or extension tubes. The amount of benefit from the extension tubes depends on lens focal length, the higher the ratio of extension to lens focal length the greater the benefit. So you might need to have more than one extension tube on the camera to make much difference. These are just empty tubes that allow you to focus closer to the subject, and have connections that transmit electronic signals from lens to camera.

I have only one macro lens, Canon 100 mm f/2.8 L IS. This is an excellent lens but not cheap. I often use it for portraits and other shots too since the f/2.8 allows a nice background blur even when focusing on more distant objects than you would for macro.

It is very useful to have the image stabilization for macro if you will be hand holding your macro shots, for example chasing butterflies or bugs. Even if they hold still for the shot, you will see hand shake much more with macro shots. And often you cannot combat this with very short exposures because you must keep the aperture small to get enough depth of field. With macro, DOF is razor thin. For stationary objects, better to use a tripod.

[jcuknz]

You should be aware that the ecconomically priced sets of 4 close-up lenses [ a lens modifies focus a filter modifies colour .. sorry I am being pedantic ] on Amazon/ebay can be trusted to be complete rubbish. I have got better result playing with cheap magnifying glasses from a discount store cellotaped onto the camera lens [ they were the same diameter ]

Ideally you go to B&H in New York or similar and get B+W variety, or similar .... one will cost what the set does but is worth it for the images it gives you.

You existing 15-55 lens is really a bit short for the job... true you can get more powerful CU lenses but the higher the power the more likely you will suffer loss of image quality.

Close-up lens come into their own when used with longer lens ... I use them with a 280 and 430 mm lens where I use them to overcome the inability of the lens to focus close when at full zoom [ they are a x10 and x12 zoom ] .... using their narrow angle of view at full zoom to achieve the tight framing I am after.

Note .. for a given image size there is no difference in depth of field irrespective of what focal length you use ... but remember that when you shoot 'tight' there is little or no DoF ... one of the hazards of this aspect of photography.

The 'true' macro lens is a modern convieience tool and within its limitations, normally will only give you 1:1 framing [ the image is the same size as the subject ] at best. I have not bothered to get one for this reason ... but they are convienient

Finally extension tubes ... these are highly regarded and are the means, if required, to get really big and close ... unfortunately their nature means you get really close* which can give rise to lighting problems and scaring the little beasties etc. Here again I will warn you off the cheaper ones which are just plain tubes and will not enable the camera to control your lens. They work well with older and/or lens with manual aperture adjustment rings. an automatic lens will default to fully open which is great for focusing but a complete NO NO for taking the actual picture I have read of work-arounds but since I have my old film lenses I have not needed to try them, nor have I cameras capable of the W-A.

I'd mention here a varient of the extension tube which is the 'bellows' where with a short 25mm lens I achieved x9 magnification, 4mm filling the full frame camera 36mm across back in film-days.

I have all the above except a macro lens and for ease of use my preference is a long lens and a moderate [ 2 dioptre ] close-up lens though with the 280 lens I feel I probably should get a 4 dioptre CU lens.

When the focusing power of the camera lens is included the 2 dioptre will probably give you a working range of between 20 inches and around 13 inches, to fill the sensor with the 430mm lens about a 39mm subject across.

* with your 15-55 lens but similar to using CU lens if used with a longer lens, except the longer the lens, the more extension required.

Without wishing to put you off I suggest you do what you can with what you get, say a good 4 dioptre CU lens or an extension tube, and if it suits your needs that is fine, otherwise you will need to get more/different gear.

[Stagecoach]

The 'true' macro lens is a modern convieience tool and within its limitations, normally will only give you 1:1 framing [ the image is the same size as the subject ] at best. I have not bothered to get one for this reason ... but they are convienient

Finally extension tubes ... these are highly regarded and are the means, if required, to get really big and close

John,

What limitations does a true macro lens of 1:1 magnification have that could be considered as greater limitations than those of a 68mm (corrected from 36mm) standard set of tubes used with lets say a 50mm or 100mm lens?



Grahame

[Saorsa]

You should be aware that the ecconomically priced sets of 4 close-up lenses [ a lens modifies focus a filter modifies colour .. sorry I am being pedantic ] on Amazon/ebay can be trusted to be complete rubbish. I have got better result playing with cheap magnifying glasses from a discount store cellotaped onto the camera lens [ they were the same diameter ]

Cheap single element closeup lenses aren't really very useful.

The best closeup lenses are very good but one characteristics of the good ones is that they have two elements so that chromatic and spherical distortion (which causes light of different wavelengths to focus on different planes) is minimized.

These are generally called achromatic lenses and have two or more elements. Canon makes the 250d and 500D which are doublets. They also make a cheaper 500 which is not as good.

I use old Leitz ELPRO lenses on my Nikon V1 CX lenses and Raynox 150 and 250 on my DX camera lenses. The Raynox lenses come in a mount that fits a variety of filter sizes because it is like a pinch on lenscap. You can see one of them here on a point and shoot.



Here is a shot with the ELPRO VIb on the 30-110mm Nikon 1 kit lens.

[DanK]

It is very useful to have the image stabilization for macro if you will be hand holding your macro shots, for example chasing butterflies or bugs.

Up to a point. The hybrid IS on the 100L provides much less benefit at macro distances than at longer distances. I don't recall precisely, but I think Canon claims 2 and 4 stops, respectively. I find that I get about 1.5 near minimum working distance.

For chasing bugs, I think it is more important to have a properly diffused flash. That freezes motion and allows you to use a more reasonable aperture. When possible, I supplement that with a monopod. It's not always possible to use one--sometimes there isn't time even to adjust the height. However, I find I often can, if I use a tilt head set to tilt up/down rather than portrait/landscape. My standard bug-chasing rig has been a crop-sensor body, a 100mm macro lens, a 36mm extension tube, and a diffused flash held by the end of the lens with a home-made bracket. That was the setup for these two:

The 'true' macro lens is a modern convieience tool and within its limitations, normally will only give you 1:1 framing [ the image is the same size as the subject ] at best. I have not bothered to get one for this reason ... but they are convienient

I don't think I understand this. IMHO, if you are satisfied with the focal length, the only disadvantage of using a true macro lens compared to say, tubes, is cost. The great thing about tubes is that you can use them on any lens. Once in a while, if I want full-body shots of large bugs, I will put my entire Kenko set (68mm total) on a longer lens rather than on one of my macro lenses.

[Inkanyezi]

When the focusing power of the camera lens is included /.../

I think it helps to understand how "focusing power" relates to dioptres, as it determines what lens will be worth the while to attach to your camera.

The dioptre is a measurement of the refractive power, compared to a lens of 1 m focal length. Hence +1 dioptre is one metre, and +2 dioptres is a focal length of ½ m. When put in front of a camera lens set to infinity, the focus will change to exactly that distance in front of the close-up lens.

With the same logic, we can look at the camera lens itself, take an 18-55 mm lens that focuses down to 30 cm from the sensor. The lens itself protrudes about 10 cm, so the effective distance from its front is about 20 cm. If we divide the metre with those 20 cm, we find a focusing power of about five dioptres. You can actually get as close as about 8" from the front of that lens without any aid other than its own focusing mechanism.

So that's about where it is fruitful to start, if we wish to get closer with an attached lens in front. Lenses of less power than the focusing power of the camera lens are to little avail, because you won't get much closer, and you won't get much higher reproduction scale. This is the reason why there is really not the brightest idea to put close-up lenses on a normal zoom of the kind mostly delivered with system cameras. The close-up lens will add optical errors, but it will not add a lot of what we want to achieve. Of course we could put a +5 achromatic close-up lens on it, adding no more than distortion, field curvature and coma, but retaining excellent sharpness in the middle, and with the combo getting down to 10 cm from the front of the lens, effectively doubling the size of reproduced objects. I think it is not worth the price, as a good quality +5 close-up lens is in the range of about $160.

With a telezoom or superzoom that has a longer close focusing distance it makes a lot more sense to add a close-up lens. For example a bridge camera can benefit a lot from close-up lenses, and close-up lenses also make sense for the longer zooms of system cameras. With a long focal length, you can get a reproduction range that is reasonable with a convenient working distance, that will not scare the insects or block the light. Also a narrower angle of view makes use of the best part of what the lens can capture, so remaining optical errors of the achromatic lens are not as evident (curvature of field, distortion, coma). Those errors are not important when you shoot nature objects, as flowers and insects, but for reproduction of flat objects with straight lines, stamps and similar, close-up lenses are not suitable.

For a tele zoom that focuses down to about 1 metre, even a simple +1 dioptre lens does small wonders, enabling you to focus between a metre and a half metre from the edge of the lens, and at such low refractive power, optical errors are negligible, including chromatic aberration.

[ajohnw]

There isn't any reason why tubes or close up lenses shouldn't be used on a dedicated macro lens as well. Or for that matter a converter of say 1.4x. That plus an extension tube is a fairly popular arrangement on zoom lenses being used for macro work.

There is something that should be considered before buying equipment and that is working distance. Most manufacturers data sheets give the minimum focus distance of their lenses. This is measured from the sensor plain on the camera. The actual working distance is that minus the length of the lens + what is usually called the flange focal distance, the distance from the lens mount surface to the sensor surface. The way this works out if single simple lenses are used is that 1:1 will be achieved when the subject distance is equal to twice the focal length of the lens. In terms of camera lenses a typical 100mm macro lens will have an actual working distance of around 100mm for a 1:1 reproduction ratio. For 2:1 it will be around 200mm and so on. Add a 1.4x converter and the distance will increase prorate. Extension tubes allow a lens to focus more closely than they normally do. Again working distances will tend to relate to the focal length of the lens but should be some what longer.

The working distance matters because of lighting either natural or what ever form of lighting is used in practice. I find for instance with a certain make of 100mm macro lens I can use the camera's built in flash at 1:1. This tends to favour types without built in image stability and those that extend when the magnification is increased as they tend to have lower diameters than others and don't block the output from the flash.

As pointed out in the CinC tutorial here close up lenses are best used on longer focal length lenses. They need less dioptres so aberration problems are reduced as well.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...es-closeup.htm

No info on working distances there but they can be approximated from info here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-up_filter

As close up lenses might be used on several different lenses. Buying the largest size likely to be needed and step up rings is one option that personally I am yet to try out.

There may be a catch on M 4/3 macro lenses. When I initially looked at them some time ago I gained the distinct impression that they were really 2:1 and stated as 1:1 because of the crop factor. I suspect this is the case on both the Panasonic and Olympus ones. Some one did tell me the working distance of the Olympus and it ties in with this so I didn't buy one to find out. Olympus bodies come with built in IS so it makes more sense to use a DSLR type with an adapter or one of there lenses plus extension tubes or a close up filter. AF is lost using the DSLR lens which can make life a touch tricky to say the least. I'm hoping focus peaking will help with that - it might not though.

John
-

[Saorsa]

There is something that should be considered before buying equipment and that is working distance. Most manufacturers data sheets give the minimum focus distance of their lenses. This is measured from the sensor plain on the camera. The actual working distance is that minus the length of the lens + what is usually called the flange focal distance, the distance from the lens mount surface to the sensor surface. The way this works out if single simple lenses are used is that 1:1 will be achieved when the subject distance is equal to twice the focal length of the lens. In terms of camera lenses a typical 100mm macro lens will have an actual working distance of around 100mm for a 1:1 reproduction ratio. For 2:1 it will be around 200mm and so on. Add a 1.4x converter and the distance will increase prorate. Extension tubes allow a lens to focus more closely than they normally do. Again working distances will tend to relate to the focal length of the lens but should be some what longer.


John
-

By way of illustration

[Inkanyezi]

I'd flick in here, that the "true macro" is a rather moot term, which we actually have little use for in real life.

It boils down to the size of the sensor; i.e. a 4/3 sensor att 1:2 reproduction will render the same final image as a FF with 1:1, and there are really advantages to the approach of smaller sensor size with tighter pixel pitch for close-up work, although they get lost when reproduction ratio approaches life size on the sensor.

The reason is that AF works well down to about 1:2 size on the sensor and becomes uncertain close to life size. For those of us that focus by swaying in, it is a simple fact of life that we have learned. AF does not work well close to life size, and at life size it does not work at all. It works somewhat better with IF lenses, but the same problem applies there too, although not to the same degree as with a lens that elongates by focusing. Good Thing then that many macro lenses now have inner focusing.

So the reproduction rate is a figure that will tell us what size of subject the lens might handle, when we know our sensor size. At FF, a 1:1 reproduction, life size, will cover 24x36 mm, the size of a large postage stamp. The same reproduction rate on a 4/3 camera will cover a smaller size than a small postage stamp. And those of us working with medium format cameras will have an even larger field at 1:1 reproduction.

So the figure that is often stated as "true" macro can be useful, but in discussions is more often moot.

Hence when working very close, the AF might be uncertain, also with macro lenses, and often a technique of "rocking in focus" is used, moving the camera back and forth with focus locked, till the correct distance is found. The DSLR viewfinder often will not work well in that situation, but you can use a chosen focus spot and focus confirmation. Live view is often better and the mirror-free systems have an edge when it comes to close-up work.

And why would 1:2 ratio work better? If let's say, your subject is a bee, and you want it to fill your frame reasonably, you'll have to move in to life size if you have a full frame camera, while with a 1.5 crop camera you'll still be close to life size, while the 4/3 camera will be at more like 1:2 ratio. With the smaller sizes, you need not sway to find focus yourself, but AF still works reliably. As subjects are prone to move, swaying above it at a close distance might not be the best idea. A more reasonable reproduction rate also means that you might have a longer working distance, depending on focal length.

So even though not correct in real arithmetic terms, using the ratio corrected for crop factor, in real life it can make sense. It is easier to work with a small sensor size, when your subjects are very small, and our crop sizes are indeed very suitable for shooting medium size insects.

[Saorsa]

I would agree. We have had a definition of macro starting at 1:1 but the technology of today is such that we have no direct measure of magnification. If I take a picture with a point and shoot at it's minimum focus distance, the image on the rear screen can very well produce a magnification of greater than 1:1.

It's not like I will be able to take the sensor out and measure the size of something as I could on film. I would need a specialized application that allowed me to use crosshairs to define bounds and then calculate actual size based on pixels. In that specific case, absolute knowledge of the magnification ratio would be important but, the distance/magnification scales of most camera macro lenses would make this unknowable.

Regardless, I don't think I have a screen as small as an APS sensor on any of my devices.

[DanK]

I'd flick in here, that the "true macro" is a rather moot term, which we actually have little use for in real life.

It boils down to the size of the sensor

I know what you are writing, and I agree with much of it, but I think these two sentences are misleading.

When people refer to a dedicated or true macro lens, that phrase has a very specific meaning, which is that the size of the image on the sensor at minimum working distance is the size in real life, hence, 1:1. This is independent of sensor size. It will be true if you are projecting the image on a piece of paper.

Sensor size is relevant only if the smaller-sized sensor has higher pixel density. They generally do, but not always. When a smaller sensor has a higher density, it will use more pixels to cover the image of the subject then will a larger sensor. This also translates into more reach, if you are not shooting at MWD--that is, you can fill the frame from farther back with a crop sensor camera. IMHO, this is the major advantage of crop sensors for 1:1 macro work. However, this is a function of pixel density. If you have FF and crop sensor cameras with comparable density (not out of the question, particularly given the Nikon 800 series), there is no effect of sensor size for a given macro image. In that case, cropping the large-sensor image will be the same as the uncropped image from the small-sensor camera.

To make this concrete, I shoot with two bodies, a 50D crop and a 5DIII full frame. The 50D does have a higher pixel density, but not enough to fully offset the difference in size, because the 50D has fewer pixels (4752 x 3168, vs. 5760 x 3840).

All of this, however, is really a distraction for the OP, who is not considering different camera bodies. She has a specific camera body and wants to know what to attach to it to take macro photos. In that context, I think it is helpful to explain what a dedicated macro lens does and does not provide.

[Inkanyezi]

All of this, however, is really a distraction for the OP, who is not considering different camera bodies. She has a specific camera body and wants to know what to attach to it to take macro photos. In that context, I think it is helpful to explain what a dedicated macro lens does and does not provide.

Yes indeed, and that is why I mention inner focusing and the finicky ability of AF to focus very close. For the particular body, an inner focusing macro lens would be better in this respect than one is not inner focusing, and I hope there are not a lot of those elongating ones with their focal length fixed around. Even though a lens is inner focusing, the AF close-up performance might suffer when approaching life size. This is good to know, as you can always get more reliable AF function just backing off a little bit. And if you really want the largest possible reproduction on the sensor, locking focus at the closest distance and rocking in focus with focus confirmation or with live view might be the most fruitful approach.

It is also good to know that the reflex finder in modern DSLR cameras is difficult to use for finding focus, and that focus confirmation in the viewfinder or using live view will improve your chance of sharpness when you rock it in by slight back and forth movement.

Pixel densities won't matter too much as long as we use a substantial part of the image area. More important is being able to handle the camera and lens combination reliably and comfortably. Therefore it is good to know particular quirks of the approach you might use.

I would wish that manufacturers making inner focusing macro lenses, would make them focus beyond 1:1 reproduction ratio, which would annul the AF uncertainty at this point. It is however, for optical reasons, unfeasible with an elongating, fixed focal length, macro lens. Inner focusing works by decreasing focal length of the lens, so that say a 70 mm macro has a 35 mm focal length at 1:1 reproduction, but still the same distance to the sensor.