I know what it is and what it does, but how does it work

[timmyquest]

i'm refering to the 500D macro filter doo-hicky

[CyberDyneSystems]

It screws onto the front of the lens like a filter and gives you much closer focusing.

It works very well... hard to notice any quality degradation.. in fact I'm not sure you could notice any.

The downside is the limited range you have for focus distance. You have to be a very specific destance from the object for it too acheive focus... so you have no room for movement.

Another great option is to look into the three ring set of Kenko Auto-extension tubes.

These offer much more leeway.. as far as both distance and magnification increase.

Downside here is that to install them you have to actually remove the lens from the camera. :( This doesn't sound like a big deal untill you are in the feild and want to alter the set-up.

[Scottes]

What CDS said.

But I'll also add "it works just like a magnifying glass."

[timmyquest]

But I'll also add "it works just like a magnifying glass."

Thats what i was thinking, and all i was really looking for. But we all know how CDS has a way with words :twisted:

[Scottes]

Well, I'll have to admit that I was a bit stumped by your question the first time I read it. But when I saw that 5 hours had passed with no answer... well, I stuck my neck out.

My first thought was to launch into the physics and dynamics of bi-convex ground glass and it's light diffracting properties, but then I figured that you wouldn't want that kind of answer, so I said "magnifying glass."

[timmyquest]

but then I figured that you wouldn't want that kind of answer, so I said "magnifying glass."

I'm not entirely sure i like what your implying there...a general sense of "i think your stupid" has been coming from your posts directed at me lately. Not entirely sure where it's coming from.

Forgive me for not knowing how the lens works from this:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/87503.jpg

Canon Close-up lenses are for quick and easy close-up photography. The close-up lens is screwed on to the front of a lens like a filter. Close-up lenses 250D and 500D have two achromatic elements to correct chromatic aberrations. They do not degrade the high optical performance of EF lenses. Close-up lens 500 has only one element, making it more affordable.

The 250D is suited for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 30 to 135mm. The 500D and 500 are geared for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 70 to 300mm.

I guess next time i'll just assume that "close up lens" is the same thing as "magnifying glass" How stupid of me... :roll:

[toddb]

I've got that 500D for my 28-135mm IS. I got it because I knew I wasn't going to be able to afford a macro lens anytime soon. I think it works pretty well. I haven't used it too much recently, but I'll post you a few shots when I first got it. At least give you an idea. I think I am able to get (off the top of my head) some where between 6 to 12 inches. The 28-135 already has macro so that's how I'm able to get real close. I also use it on my only other lens, 50mm f1.8, with a step up ring, but not like I'll be able to use the speed of that lens because you need the smaller aperture to get any kind of DOF, so the IS on the 28-135 works best in my case.

http://www.toddburke.net/post/fly.jpg
http://www.toddburke.net/post/dragon_fly_smile.jpg
http://www.toddburke.net/post/dragon_fly_01.jpg
http://www.toddburke.net/images/cat_yawn.jpg


http://www.toddburke.net/images/2004_05/images/CRW_1312.jpg
http://www.toddburke.net/images/2004_05/images/CRW_1570.jpg

So someone that actually knew what they were doing would probably get some pretty good results with the 500D.

[Scottes]

but then I figured that you wouldn't want that kind of answer, so I said "magnifying glass."

I'm not entirely sure i like what your implying there...a general sense of "i think your stupid" has been coming from your posts directed at me lately. Not entirely sure where it's coming from.

OH, Good Lord, NO!

And I'm very sorry if I managed to imply that in any way, and I'll watch myself from now on.


The comment comes from your directness - you say it like it is, simply and succintly. My comment was in no means about intelligence, but about long-winded answers. (Kinda proven by your comment about CDS's answer.) I just figured that you wouldn't want some long answer - which I'm prone to do - so I stopped and thought that the short answer would be more what you were looking for. The short answer was "magnifying glass."

Plain and simple, Tim. Short and sweet. Nothing to do with stupidity or intelligence or anything like that in any way.

Again, my apologies for making you think any other way.

[rick barclay]

Outrageous pictures, toddb. The fly and the dragon get my "Eeeeew of the Day" award.

[CyberDyneSystems]

So,.. it's o-kay for Timmy to insult me based on my "long windedness"... when I only try to give a thourough answer as the nature of the question was in fact.. unclear.... but clearly it is not O-kay for Scottes to even type somethimg that MAy give the slightest impression,.. however off base,.. that he may know something that you dont? :P


Relax Timmy :wink:

It's all in jest.

[timmyquest]

:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=234250#234250

[wolverinesr1]

Toddb ,
i was thinking of getting a macro lense myself,but after seeing what the 500d can do i see no need .those are awesome shots. thanks timmyquest for bringing this up. before reading this i thought i would have to have a special macro lense.
jeff

[timmyquest]

Toddb ,
i was thinking of getting a macro lense myself,but after seeing what the 500d can do i see no need .those are awesome shots. thanks timmyquest for bringing this up. before reading this i thought i would have to have a special macro lense.
jeff

Yeah me too, i have to wonder which lens would be best though. How does it do on a tele photo macro lens????

[wolverinesr1]

hey timmyquest after seeing that on a 28-135IS im so awestruck because i have that lense myself,now i really have to check into getting one of those.for now my 28-135 is my big gun,but im drooling over the 100-300DO IS.so i have to start the saving process all over again. i'm curious now that you mention it how it would do on that lense.of course i now realize there would be a MM difference not just focal range.
jeff

[timmyquest]

hey timmyquest after seeing that on a 28-135IS im so awestruck because i have that lense myself,now i really have to check into getting one of those.for now my 28-135 is my big gun,but im drooling over the 100-300DO IS.so i have to start the saving process all over again. i'm curious now that you mention it how it would do on that lense.of course i now realize there would be a MM difference not just focal range.
jeff

I'm just struggling to find a use for my sigma 70-300 with macro. The only good images i ever get from it are when it's used as a macro lens. However if for some reason the 500D on a macro lens throws stuff out of whack then i'll just get one for the 70-200 that will partially replace the sigma, or even the 100-400 that will eventually (actually) replace the sigma.

[Scottes]

I like the 500D on either the 100-400 - for it's IS and the possible magnification - as well as on the 70-200 - for it's cleaner, crisper images.

However, I'd rather have tubes. My main frustration with the 500D is that you have about a 4" focus zone. Try to move back a little and you're OoF. Try to move forward a little and you're OoF.

And the 28-135 should have the 250D which is better tuned for that focal length. At least that's what Canon says.

[rick barclay]

So which is the better option: to put a 250D on your 28-135mm lens, or
just to buy a dedicated macro lens? I also read that the 500D is only
effective up to a range of 300mm, which seem to go against what Scottes wrote.

Oops. No, it doesn't.

[Scottes]

A dedicated macro lens is far more likely to be of a higher quality - optically and build-wise - than your 28-135. It will cost you another arm, though, and you lose the IS. The cheapest good macro lens will run you about $370-$400. A 250D will cost you less than $100. And it may fit other lenses, or require a $10 step-up/down ring to fit other lenses. A 250D is lighter than carrying around another lens. A 250D has a rather fixed working distance, whereas a macro lens will go from about 9 inches to infinity. A dedicated macro lens will provide sharper, crisper images, usually. (Did I mention that already?)

So I guess it depends on what you want versus what you want to spend.

Also, read my mini-rant (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35359) comparing close-up lenses to extension tubes.

[toddb]

When I got the 500D last year, I wondered which I should get, 250D or 500D.

The 250D is suited for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 30 to 135mm. The 500D and 500 are geared for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 70 to 300mm.


I knew I would be in the 135mm range on my 28-135 so thats why I got the 500D. I guess this is because I wanted to try and take pictures on insects and such, so I wasn't as concerned with being zoomed out more, I wanted to try and fill the frame as much as possible. (I went back to B&H and I didn't even see a 72mm size 250D, maybe that's why I got the 500D). If I had to do it over, I would have got the 77mm and a stepping ring to fit the 28-135.

What I do is turn the focus all the way to the macro setting on the 28-135 then move the camera forward and back to get it in focus. I've never been able to get a tripod set up to take a picture of an insect. So bascily it probably makes the subject twice as big as it would have been without it on this lens which is good so you have more res after you crop.

Macros are really tough, I think I usually have to get at least a f11 aperture, at least, to get the DOF I want. It's hard to get enough light, because direct sunlight is so harsh as you can see from my insect shots. But I know it can be done, I've seen some pretty good macros with these cameras so I'll keep trying.