Canon 500D close up lens (not the camera)

C

Calzor Suzay

Suspended / Banned
Messages
432
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Bit of a daft naming convention by Canon to name a camera after one of their lens/filters as it makes a pain in the arse to research but anyway... :)

I'm not really into macro photography but have the occasional desire to shoot a bug or bit of jewellery close up etc and my interest got peaked by a recent(ish) post of the Tangents blog about the 500D screw on filter.

Does anyone have any experience of these filters?
I'll be sticking it on the front of a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II attached to a 5D MKIII so the weak link will either be me or the filter :)
 
Yes. They'll never be as good as a macro lens but as you can see the results can be ok.

I have a (very) cheap set, they're often sold in sets of three or four. A more expensive way to do it is with a Raynox close up adapter/lens.

Another option could be to go for an old manual focus macro lens. These can be found at quite good prices sometimes and as you'll be focusing manually the lack of AF shouldn't be an issue. I use one on my MFT and Sony A7 and it works very well. Personally I'd take an old manual macro lens over a Raynox every time.
 
Last edited:
Forget the cheap sets of three or four on e-bay - they're awful. The problem I found with the Raynox attachments was that they were too powerful which made it difficult to get useful results with sufficient depth of field. The 500D is just right for a medium telezoom. It's achromatic and quite sharp. I had one that I stuck on the end of a Minolta 70-210mm F4 zoom to shoot butterflies and got some nice results with it. I set the zoom to about 135mm, got the insect in the frame then framed more precisely by adjusting the zoom or moving closer/further away. AF worked ok. You obviously lose focus beyond two or three feet but it's small enough to put in a pocket just in case you need to get a bit closer.
Having said that, you'd probably get good results with an extension tube as well. Given your F2.8 aperture a big filter might cost you more than a tube.
 
Last edited:
eccles said:
Forget the cheap sets of three or four on e-bay - they're awful. The problem I found with the Raynox attachments was that they were too powerful which made it difficult to get useful results with sufficient depth of field. The 500D is just right for a medium telezoom. It's achromatic and quite sharp. I had one that I stuck on the end of a Minolta 70-210mm F4 zoom to shoot butterflies and got some nice results with it. I set the zoom to about 135mm, got the insect in the frame then framed more precisely by adjusting the zoom or moving closer/further away. AF worked ok. You obviously lose focus beyond two or three feet but it's small enough to put in a pocket just in case you need to get a bit closer.
Having said that, you'd probably get good results with an extension tube as well. Given your F2.8 aperture a big filter might cost you more than a tube.
Click to expand...

I often find "awful" a difficult statement when looking at photography gear and I'd prefer "characterful" :D

I don't think they're awful at all, they can give sharp results in the centre and... sometimes... lets say... an interesting look away from the point of focus :D That may be a look you're happy to accept or even going for but I think to dismiss them as awful is a bit sweeping IMVHO.

Two pictures taken with an awful cheap (£28 for four) Kood set on a Canon 20D with a Canon 17-85mm. They'll be less sharp here as they're via photobucket but they're acceptable for what they are on my screen and IMVHO.





This is a 100% crop from that last one.

 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info guys, I'll have a look at extension tubes as well but might just save up for the 500D although those el cheapo ones churn out a pretty decent shot Alan :)
 
Not sure the raynox is more expensive than the 500D when I researched it the raynox was half the price in fact.

Both are very good achromats and produce less CA than the cheapies. I had the expensive B&W +10 (more expensive than the raynox 150) but IQ was a lot worse.

I would recommend a raynox or 500D both have amazing reviews and I have 2 raynox's 250/202.

:)
 
Calzor Suzay said:
Bit of a daft naming convention by Canon to name a camera after one of their lens/filters as it makes a pain in the arse to research but anyway... :)

I'm not really into macro photography but have the occasional desire to shoot a bug or bit of jewellery close up etc and my interest got peaked by a recent(ish) post of the Tangents blog about the 500D screw on filter.

Does anyone have any experience of these filters?
I'll be sticking it on the front of a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II attached to a 5D MKIII so the weak link will either be me or the filter :)
Click to expand...

Those Canon close-up lenses have a good rep, though I've not used them. The 500D is only two dioptres though, probably not strong enough for what you want. 500mm is two dioptres, and D is for doublet (optical construction) that is better corrected than the usual basic singlets.

Canon 250D is probably more suitable (four dioptres) though expensive. Suggest a Raynox DCR-150 (4.8 dioptres) which is a triplet design, rather than the stronger DCR-250 (8 dioptres). A few example pics here:

DCR-150 https://www.flickr.com/groups/2011238@N25/
DCR-250 https://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/
 
I have a pair of 500D close up lens, I have used one extensively on a 300 mm lens and also on a 70-200. Framing is much much easier with the zoom but I have been happy with the results from both. I find a close up lens very useful for Dragonfly pictures, the long working distance works better than a dedicated macro lens. I have recently purchased a 2nd smaller lens for use with a Fuji 50-230 and the results I have had so far have been OK although I have not used it much yet.
 
Olympus also made two high quality close up lens attachments, the MCON 35 and the MCON 40. These have filter threads of 62mm and 55mm respectively and turn up on Ebay every now and again for not a lot, I paid about £25 for my MCON 40. They are not going to fit big telephoto lens like the 500D can, but are fine for smaller lens with those thread sizes. Review of the MCON 35 here -

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/mcon-35.html
 
Kaolin said:
I find a close up lens very useful for Dragonfly pictures, the long working distance works better than a dedicated macro lens.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this, can you explain please?

AFAIK with close up lenses you lose the ability to focus at some distance depending upon what's fitted to what. Certainly that's the case with the close up lenses I have but with a macro lens you can always focus to infinity unless it's a special jobbie like the Canon MPE.
 
With a 300mm and 500D I have a working distance of ~500mm and something approaching 1:1 magnification. With the 105 macro lens I have at 1:1 the working distance is ~150mm, which is really too close for bugs that spook easily. I always use manual focus, tend to set it to minimum and alter the subject distance to find focus. Seems to work for me, the limited focal range available is not a problem, but framing is easier with a zoom lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top