Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
Thread started 11 Sep 2012 (Tuesday) 11:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Macro Filters; are they any good?

 
Joe ­ Ravenstein
Goldmember
2,338 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: E Tx
     
Sep 11, 2012 21:21 |  #16

For the price get the Kenko extension tube set that communicates between the lens and body. Just keep in mind garbage in garbage out. Using good lens results in good images. You will lose f stops using them however.


Canon 60D,18-55mm,55-250mm,50mm compact macro, AF ext tubes. Sigma 8-16mm uwa, 18-250mm, 85mm F1.4, 150-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
borealis
Senior Member
Avatar
257 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: yukon
     
Sep 11, 2012 21:22 as a reply to  @ post 14978764 |  #17

I checked the Adorama site for that Pro-Optic tube. I disagree with the description on their site: adjustable "zooming" extension tubes with helicoids are not actually new, they were available by at least the late 1980's.

Reversing rings work with pretty much any standard-ish lens with the right filter thread- you don't have to expose the rear elements of expensive lenses to get excellent results.

As tkbslc said achromats can work very well, especially with longer lenses- they are fast, flexible and take up no room. New ones are expensive, used ones can be tough to find.

Many/most of the major manufacturers made them at some time or other and they still turn up in yard sales and pawn shops for cheap, or with old film cameras (which typically have good old glass that an imaginative photographer can find excellent use for. Like reversing the old lenses on a modern DSLR...)


"There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas." - Godard
... go play...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Sep 11, 2012 21:27 |  #18

Another inexpensive option is to grab a half-decent 50mm prime from yesteryear, and use some manual extension tubes and a mount adapter. That should run $50-75 for the kit and you get the added bonus of a manual portrait lens to play with.

I might suggest a Yashica ML 50mm f2 ($20-40). Cheap EF tubes ($10) and a C/Y to EOS adapter ($10-15). Should get 1:1 or thereabouts and great image quality.

As far as used Achromats, I once had a Sony VCL-3358 which was very good. They occasionally pop up on ebay and go for under $50, but they take some patience to find.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
borealis
Senior Member
Avatar
257 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: yukon
     
Sep 11, 2012 21:43 |  #19

Again, what Taylor said.

One of the best reasons to stick with Canon EF-mount bodies is that it is so easy to mount old lenses and accessories on them for cheap. There is so much experimenting and learning and imaging to do with so little effort or money: it really is a shame that more hobbyists don't take advantage of one of the hidden benefits of the system.


"There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas." - Godard
... go play...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
75,941 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2606
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Sep 11, 2012 22:14 |  #20

The above advice is good. But to answer your question, I've used them mostly on my Nikon F. They're fairly sharp stopped down & you don't have to lose auto exposure. Problem is that you'll be working VERY close to the subject. These are copies of 35mm slides using the +10 diopter one:

http://img.photobucket​.com …er-IR-03.jpg?t=1236830701 (external link)

http://img.photobucket​.com …r-med-01.jpg?t=1185972942 (external link)

http://img.photobucket​.com …s10_0067.jpg?t=​1185972991 (external link)

I've tried this, too. In this video, he used a 50mm reversed on 105: ProPhotoLife macro photography trick (external link)
Lens reversing, which one to use?


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Russ61
Senior Member
Avatar
265 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Tacoma, WA area
     
Sep 11, 2012 23:56 |  #21

First of all, your 18-55 is allowing "close up" photograhpy, not macro. The terminology has gotten fuzzy but once meant that macro meant the subject would show as at least the same size on the film or sensor...but that's largely irrelevant if you're NOT shooting for images of the compound eye of a bug. I suspect that you merely want to get closer to your subject, ie "frame filling" composition, but to do so will cause you to be at less than the minimum focus distance of your lens.

Closeup photography can be done 1 of 3 ways (or combos of):

  • using a true macro lens
  • using closeup filters (cheap, single element) or closeup lenses ($$$, 2 element).
  • using extension tubes

There are pros & cons to each. I own and use all 3 types. Closeup filters are by far the cheapest, but also the lowest IQ (image quality)....but are a worthy intro to closeup photography. Closeup lenses are much more optically refined and expensive. I own and use a Canon 500D occasionally, mostly on telephoto lenses as that's where closeup filters/lens give you the biggest effect. I particularly like using them on a telephoto zoom where focal length AND near/far focus both alter the magnification providing me lots of latitude.

Extension tubes come in various sizes (typically 12-35mm) and often come in kits of 3 sizes. My Kenko set has (I believe) a 12, 20, and 35mm set of tubes that can be used singly or in combo with other tubes and even with closeup filters/lenses or macro lenses. Know that extension tubes are most effective the shorter the lens its being used in conjunction with....the opposite of closeup filters/lenses. I use extension tubes principally when I want to shorten the otherwise distant closest focusing distance of telephoto lenses.

Both accessories limit distant focusing. All of this is MUCH easier to understand if you have a hands on opportunity. John Shaw's Closeups in Nature (library?) is excellent.

My recommendation is to buy some cheaper closeup filters and play with them, knowing you won't get high IQ images...but it will cheaply get your feet wet and confirm whether or not this is a photography niche you want to further pursue....then you can spend more on better gear. Closeup/macro photography has its own challenges beside just getting closer!



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Sep 12, 2012 01:16 |  #22

Russ61 wrote in post #14979823 (external link)
First of all, your 18-55 is allowing "close up" photograhpy, not macro. The terminology has gotten fuzzy but once meant that macro meant the subject would show as at least the same size on the film or sensor...

People have stolen the word macro to mean 1:1, but it just means making something small - big! Macro lenses were not always 1:1 and aren't always 1:1.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,427 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4745
Joined Dec 2008
     
Sep 12, 2012 08:27 |  #23

tkbslc wrote in post #14980002 (external link)
People have stolen the word macro to mean 1:1, but it just means making something small - big! Macro lenses were not always 1:1 and aren't always 1:1.

So how big is "big"?

And what's the acceptable ratio to where a lens can be considered/labled "macro"? I've seen more than a few labled as such, that I would not consider to be true macro lenses, including my own EF 28-135.

If I take a picture of a bug from 6 feet away and crop the heck out of the image so the bug looks "big" on a print, is that macro photography?

The 1:1 ratio is a nice finite way to describe "macro" and is generally accepted to be the standard.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Sep 12, 2012 09:11 |  #24

LV Moose wrote in post #14980725 (external link)
So how big is "big"?

And what's the acceptable ratio to where a lens can be considered/labled "macro"? I've seen more than a few labled as such, that I would not consider to be true macro lenses, including my own EF 28-135.

If I take a picture of a bug from 6 feet away and crop the heck out of the image so the bug looks "big" on a print, is that macro photography?

The 1:1 ratio is a nice finite way to describe "macro" and is generally accepted to be the standard.

Personally I can't be bothered to measure my subjects or do the math to see if my shots are 1:1, yet I will continue to call my close-up shots macro, whether they are actually 1:1 or not.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,427 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4745
Joined Dec 2008
     
Sep 12, 2012 09:30 |  #25

Sirrith wrote in post #14980897 (external link)
Personally I can't be bothered to measure my subjects or do the math to see if my shots are 1:1, yet I will continue to call my close-up shots macro, whether they are actually 1:1 or not.

Agreed. There are tons of shots in the macro section, including a lot of mine, that are not true macro. In fact I'd say most do not achieve the 1:1 ratio. But for the sake of definition, there needs be some limit as to what "true" macro is. If you do some research, 1:1 is usually it.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
myownalias
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 12, 2012 11:58 |  #26

Thank you for all your replies.

I like the idea of they Kenko tubes, but at $200, that's a stretch for me to make financially, ideally I'd like to spend sub $50 at this time, or maybe I'll wait until tax time and get a dedicated macro/close-up lens, I see a Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 for $300. I really don't like to idea of reversing rings and exposing the rear element of my lens, given that I don't have the funds to replace either of my lens should it get damaged!

Again, thank you all for your advice, I really appreciate it!



My Kit: Canon EOS 80D, EF-S 10mm - 22mm, EF-S 18 - 55mm, EF-S 55mm - 250mm.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,427 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4745
Joined Dec 2008
     
Sep 12, 2012 12:06 as a reply to  @ myownalias's post |  #27

Good luck with whichever way you decide to go!


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tmcman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,409 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 56
Joined Apr 2007
Location: NJ
     
Sep 12, 2012 12:14 |  #28

One other thought: Achromat macro filters are awesome on a g12.
https://photography-on-the.net …?t=961797&highl​ight=macro


Comments, Questions, Observations Welcome
Fuji X-T2, 18-55mm, Gitzo 1541 w/ Markins M10 ballhead.
"Art always shows itself by doing much with few and simple things." Arthur Wesley Dow

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
myownalias
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 12, 2012 12:15 as a reply to  @ LV Moose's post |  #29

Actually I do have one additional question; I have been looking at a number of different extension tubes and from what I can see, they are all EF compatible, but both my lens are EF-S. I see on my camera body that there are two mount points, one for EF and the other EF-S. Will the EF only tubes work with my EF-S lens for AF/AE control?



My Kit: Canon EOS 80D, EF-S 10mm - 22mm, EF-S 18 - 55mm, EF-S 55mm - 250mm.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
borealis
Senior Member
Avatar
257 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: yukon
     
Sep 12, 2012 12:25 |  #30

Ah yes, Mr. John Shaw. Bought that book just after it came out, two, maybe three hundred years ago. Is he still around?

Another fun option is to reverse a shortish lens on the front of a long one (filter thread to filter thread).

It has the effect of giving you ultra-high quality "close-up filters" capable of fairly outrageous magnification, depending on the lenses used and the relationships of their focal lengths. (Watch out for retro-focus wides.) Another good reason to keep buying up all those bags full of old cameras at yard sales and thrift shops.

Cokin adapters glued back to back make handy adapters...

Edit: Okay, I am pitifully out of date. No need to bother messing with the Cokin ring thing, I just did a quick search and you can find adapters for a few bucks, on ebay for example, by searching for macro lens stacking adapters or similar.


"There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas." - Godard
... go play...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,553 views & 0 likes for this thread
Macro Filters; are they any good?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is GregoryIrish1960
800 guests, 215 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.