Diopters

GalJulie

GalJulie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
247
Name
Julie
Edit My Images
Yes
I haven't a clue what diopters are but I bought a Creativelive flower photography course and it showed photographs adding +4 and + 10 diopters. What does this mean? I thought there was a dioptre near the eye piece that you adjusted but didn't know you could buy ones.

Thanks for your help.
 
They are commonly called close up lenses. and are attached like filters, they come in a range of powers (diopters)
 
Thank you Terry. So you wouldn't really need them if you have a macro lens? Nor if you were using extension tubes? I guess maybe the lecturer was using them with her lensbaby and not her macro lens. If you had extension tubes you're more likely to use them instead of the close up filters or have I got my thinking wrong?
 
GalJulie said:
Thank you Terry. So you wouldn't really need them if you have a macro lens? Nor if you were using extension tubes? I guess maybe the lecturer was using them with her lensbaby and not her macro lens. If you had extension tubes you're more likely to use them instead of the close up filters or have I got my thinking wrong?
Click to expand...

Close up lenses have one advantage over bellows & extension tubes and macro lenses in that you do not need to increase the exposure due to the added extension.
However they add an uncorrected simple lens in the optical path and inevitably reduce quality.
Some multi element closeup lens attachments are available that limit this loss of quality to a minimum.

The optimal quality is obtaind with a purposebuilt true macro lens.

Some lenses and zooms describe themselves as Macro, because you can shoot close objects with them, even though they are not corrected for working at those distances. Their quality at these close distances can be very variable.
 
Last edited:
I use Raynox diopters - inexpensive and easy to use. Basically clip one on the front and you can get closer - I've used them with a variety of lenses and there's no (to me at least) discernible loss of quality.

If you have a decent zoom lens with a bit of reach (say 200mm or more) you'll get good results with a Raynox 150 - a simple and cheap way into macro :)
 
GalJulie said:
Thank you Terry. So you wouldn't really need them if you have a macro lens? Nor if you were using extension tubes? I guess maybe the lecturer was using them with her lensbaby and not her macro lens. If you had extension tubes you're more likely to use them instead of the close up filters or have I got my thinking wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes ,you have it right ... however some macro lenses are designed for use on bellows or tubes, as they do not have any inbuilt extension themselves.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
I use Raynox diopters - inexpensive and easy to use. Basically clip one on the front and you can get closer - I've used them with a variety of lenses and there's no (to me at least) discernible loss of quality.

If you have a decent zoom lens with a bit of reach (say 200mm or more) you'll get good results with a Raynox 150 - a simple and cheap way into macro :)
Click to expand...

There is very little loss of quality over the lens you use them on , but they are no match for a proper macro lens.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
What an odd comment. How would you know what lens I use them with?

Please back up your fallacious statement with some evidence.
Click to expand...

It makes almost no difference what lens you use them on. They in effect magnify the image the lens produces, Raynox are
Good of their kind, but not produced to the quality standards or resolution. of a genuine macro lens.

You suggested a 200mm zoom lens, which has few of the attributes of a macro lens which are computed for high magnification at short range. And will easily out resolve the very best zoom lenses over the entire field of view.
 
In laboratory conditions yes - but in reality the differences are hard to discern. In my view it's a common misconception that you need a proper macro lens to shoot macro - if you have a read of Nick's thread ('Gardner's Helper') on the macro forum he has used a great variety of different setups and the results I believe speak for themselves. I shot with an MPE65 for a long time then a 100mm macro (with Raynox for extra magnification) and find the results to be acceptable - eg see below


Fly Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

This year I will be trying out a 55-200 with the Raynox - so feel free to say 'I told you so' if it doesn't work out but I'm confident the results will again be acceptable...
 
dibbly dobbler said:
In laboratory conditions yes - but in reality the differences are hard to discern. In my view it's a common misconception that you need a proper macro lens to shoot macro - if you have a read of Nick's thread ('Gardner's Helper') on the macro forum he has used a great variety of different setups and the results I believe speak for themselves. I shot with an MPE65 for a long time then a 100mm macro (with Raynox for extra magnification) and find the results to be acceptable - eg see below


Fly Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

This year I will be trying out a 55-200 with the Raynox - so feel free to say 'I told you so' if it doesn't work out but I'm confident the results will again be acceptable...
Click to expand...

Excellent result for a four stacked image.
It is interesting how the best pixel algorithms used in stacks seem to increase the quality of the fusion, as it evens out any uneveness in flatness of field.
 
Thanks guys! Food for thought before I go daft and purchase the wrong thing.

One more question - in terms of focus stacking software can you get by fine with photoshop or are you best to buy Zerene or Helicon?
 
dibbly dobbler said:
I use Zerene Julie - don't know how or if it can be done in Photoshop.

If you are new to macro though I would just take some normal shots to begin with and see how you go with that. Good luck :)
Click to expand...
Thank you! Yes, I am new to it. Have dabbled but not properly. That's what I'll do - the software isn't going to run away lol!
 
Sorry to be Mr Pedantic chaps, but a Dioptre is a unit of (Refractive) power of a lens (Not a camera lens, that is a combination of lenses.) most commonly used in the ophthalmic industries. A Dioptre is a unit of refractive power, which is equal to the reciprocal of the focal length (in metres) of a given lens.
The term does seem to have been miss-appropriated.
Anyway we all know what you mean. As you were. :-)
 
Graham W said:
Sorry to be Mr Pedantic chaps, but a Dioptre is a unit of (Refractive) power of a lens (Not a camera lens, that is a combination of lenses.) most commonly used in the ophthalmic industries. A Dioptre is a unit of refractive power, which is equal to the reciprocal of the focal length (in metres) of a given lens.
The term does seem to have been miss-appropriated.
Anyway we all know what you mean. As you were. :)
Click to expand...


And people still call them close up filters..
which is equally as bad.

A good few years ago I had an optical works in Bradford fit a 1/2 dioptre lens into a filter ring for my OM 135 F2.8, to reduce its closest working distance, I still have it, but I have no Idea why I needed it so badly.
 
All I was wondering is what they were as I photo course showed pics taken with them. Thanks to all who helped clear it up for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top