How good are 'close up lenses/filters'

chris321

chris321

I like the ginger one
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,572
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently got a DSLR having moved up from a bridge camera, which I used for macro quite a bit. I don't have the cash at the moment to buy a dedicated macro lens, and I was just wondering how these filter things compare to the real deal? Anyone got any experience with them? Or photos they've taken using them? Cheers guys!

Chris
 
They're not too bad, although they're obviously not as good as an expensive macro lens. If you've got something like a 50mm prime lens, you could always mount it in reverse in front of another lens. This works very well indeed, although is a little cumbersome. I used loads of packing take to do it, although there are dedicated adaptors available.
 
There are a number of people on here that use Raynox DCR-250. That is a close up lens. Those that use them say that it is a good piece of kit.
 
I've used the Canon 500D which gives reasonable results but as mr pants has said it is not as good as a dedicated macro lens. There are a couple of example shots in this thread.

Hope this helps. :thumbs:
 
I think extension tubes will give you better IQ than the cheaper diopters although they will be a little more expensive. It may be worth finding someone who also wants to try them and going halves on a set and then splitting them up.

Bob
 
I have a couple of macro lenses but had the chance to but a Sigma diopter cheap on Ebay so took a punt.

This was taken on my Pentax K10D with an old Pentax FA 80-320mm lens (cannot in any way be considered even near to a macro) and Sigma Achromatic maco filter. No cropping.

I was actually quite pleased with the results.

 
The images in this thread were taken with a Raynox DCR250 on my EFS 55-250 lens, they are uncropped, the berries in the picture are about 1 cm in size.
 
I think the simple answer is even a cheap ebay filter is better than nothing at all (ie you can take a macro(ish) shot) but the more you spend the better the results as demonstrated by the Raynox shots, these are not cheap but definately get the results.
 
Close-up lenses are great :D Perfect for flower portraits and other stuff that is not macro-close. Very cheap, fit in a shirt pocket, very easy to use with absolutely no technical/camera complications, and plenty sharp enough for most things. One of the few genuine equipment bargains to be had for £20 :)

Richard.
 
Hmmm, that's a much more positive response than I was expecting to be honest! I thought there would be a lot of people telling me not to bother and save up for a dedicated macro lens! I might do a bit more research into that, I really like all of the examples you guys have showed me! Cheers!

Chris
 
I picked up a Raynox DCR-250 for about £30 from Ebay.
 
jgs001 said:
I picked up a Raynox DCR-250 for about £30 from Ebay.
Click to expand...

I always thought these were more expensive than that, might have to invest in one for the camera bag as it would occasionally come in handy when out and about.
 
The Raynox is brilliant but its nothing compared with a proper Macro lens.

Here's a couple of shots I got with a Raynox fitted to my sigma 70-300.

DSC_0002.jpg


DSC_0009.jpg


It's worth getting just to see if you will enjoy doing macro work. And if you don't enjoy it then you can sell it on without really loosing any money at all.

:thumbs:
 
I would say stay well clear of the cheap ones off eBay. Bought a pack myself, 4 in total of different magnification for £10. Am I surprised that the picture quality was poor?! Raynox all the way! Bought mine for £40 from Amazon.
 
I know I definitely want to get a macro setup (I really enjoyed the bridge camera in that respect), but I was wondering if any solution short of buying a dedicated lens will really hold up.... I'm still not sure of whether to buy tubes or a converter, or just put the money towards the Sigma 105mm I've been looking at! Hmm, I guess it depends on how the money goes! Thanks a lot guys!

Chris
 
Chris, if you are really into macro of the tiny fly super-close variety, then you'll love a pukka macro lens and anything less, eg tubes, reversing rings etc, will just be a pain. Sigma is good :) (You'll be wanting a ring-flash before long... :lol: )

I have two macros, EF-S 60mm which is frankly too short, and an EF 100mm that I usually use with a 1.4x extender for even more working distance. However, I still use a close-up lens quite a bit as it's always in the bag on walkabout, even when the macros have been left at home.

Richard.
 
i use this FOXfoto reduction rings from poland off ebay

they look like this, obviously this is one is chipped, was chipped in transport so they sent me another one.

IMG_6802.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top