Are these 'close up' things the same as extenstion tubes?

[Ferco]

hi found these on ebay: Close Up Lenses for Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro US-
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=007&item=170036417517&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
Is this good for macro photography? is this the equivelent of extension tubes? thanks

[Double Negative]

I used to use these all the time with my 35mm f/2.0 (which focuses really close already) and got pretty decent results. They are however, NOT the same as extension tubes.

Tubes have no optics. All they do is distance the lens further away from the film/sensor - which gives you greater magnification with ANY lens (unlike the filters, which are a particular size).

Tubes give you better image quality over the filters but not as good as a true, dedicated macro lens. So in order of cost/quality:

Filters -> Tubes -> Macro lens.

[Fureinku]

and dont the macro filters cause vignetting?

[Double Negative]

and dont the macro filters cause vignetting?

I suppose they could - I haven't witnessed any, personally. Check out my macro gallery (http://litpixel.com/ee/list.php?exhibition=12) - all of pages one and two and the first two of page three are all done with either the 35mm f/2.0 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses and three close-up filters (+1/+2/+3). Most are even handheld.

[tsaraleksi]

I have cheap and crappy macro filters from the '70s, but they do a pretty good job (heck, I've printed at 13x19 with shots done with them). Of course, they're not as good as a real lens.

This was with the aforementioned filters on a 50/1.8.
http://static.flickr.com/41/84182038_3490e7bd67_o.jpg This guy is about 2 inches tall.

[Double Negative]

I have cheap and crappy macro filters from the '70s, but they do a pretty good job (heck, I've printed at 13x19 with shots done with them). Of course, they're not as good as a real lens.

Heh, that's about what mine are too. I got 'em in '84 or so. I'm not even sure there's a brand on them... Totally cheap-ass generic filters.

[angryhampster]

Heh, that's about what mine are too. I got 'em in '84 or so. I'm not even sure there's a brand on them... Totally cheap-ass generic filters.



Same with mine..I've gotten decent results with them and my 24-70 Sigma
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/angryhampster/artistic/flowerbug4.jpg

[tsaraleksi]

Same with mine..I've gotten decent results with them and my 24-70 Sigma
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/angryhampster/artistic/flowerbug4.jpg

That looks like a regular macro!

Mine are vivitars, I stole them from my dad's lab, where they were used in conjunction with some ancient Canon for doing something related to microbiology (I think they use some pos point and shoot now). They're 55mm filters, so I have to use a cokin filter holder to wedge them in. Not exactly elegant, but it works.

[Mark_48]

Not to be picky, but yeah I guess I am, a close up lens is not really a filter and should not be called such as it it used to add magnification or otherwise alter the focal length a lens. A filter on the other hand generally modifies the amount of light passing through it (neutral density, colored, UV, etc) or alters the quality of an image in some other way (diffusion, star, prism, etc) and provides no magnification.

[Double Negative]

Same with mine..I've gotten decent results with them and my 24-70 Sigma
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/angryhampster/artistic/flowerbug4.jpg

Wow, that's a darn good shot.

[angryhampster]

Wow, that's a darn good shot.



A whole thread of em here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=206666

I need to add some of them to my website.