Can close up filter match macro lens?


andugo

New Member
Dec 16, 2009
59
0
0
#1
Close up filter vs macro lens...

What are this 2 advantage n disadvantages.

What if close up lens attach with close up filter more magnification?... Anyone can guide noob here?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#2
close up filter definitely can match macro lenses.

that is why people pay good money for macro lenses, when they can do the same thing with a $15-25 filter.......

of course not! you can easily google for the answers....

and yes, a macro lens + close up filter will give you better magnification. but you will have to sacrifice other things for this.
 

ice021479

New Member
May 2, 2009
8
0
0
#3
close up filter definitely can match macro lenses.

that is why people pay good money for macro lenses, when they can do the same thing with a $15-25 filter.......

of course not! you can easily google for the answers....

and yes, a macro lens + close up filter will give you better magnification. but you will have to sacrifice other things for this.
can match??? Or cannot match? I'm confused :)
as far as I know close up filters are not that good compared to macro lenses
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#4
can match??? Or cannot match? I'm confused :)
as far as I know close up filters are not that good compared to macro lenses
cannot la, if not got many mad crazy rich people paying more than 40 times the price at least....... of close up filter.....?
 

Oct 26, 2006
1,355
0
0
31
toa payoh
#5
Close up filter vs macro lens...

What are this 2 advantage n disadvantages.

What if close up lens attach with close up filter more magnification?... Anyone can guide noob here?
close up filters are cheaper than regular macro lenses and not many people like to use them since you'll loose you "auto focusing".. there are many wicked macro shots taken by people with just a pns with the close up filters, thats if you know what kinds of close up filters works for your cam. you might wanna look into extension tubes and reverse lens for macro too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevewhy/
 

Last edited:

andugo

New Member
Dec 16, 2009
59
0
0
#6
so i guess close up filter is pretty useless?
 

Numnumball

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2009
13,899
0
0
Central
#7
so i guess close up filter is pretty useless?
Not entirely..

With additional glass, iq bound to suffer but nt really with quality ones like raynox
Tat said, is still best to use a dedicated macro lens with extension tubes..
 

NovJoe

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2009
5,650
0
0
~Sunny Little Island~
#8
Many macro lens now can attain 1:1 magnification but only some filters like Raynox can help to turn your normal lens to macro but not with 1:1 until you stack a few of them. The moment more glass filters are stack together, you can see a deterioration in IQ and will have CA around the edges.

Dedicated Macro lens are invented for a good reason.
 

orionmystery

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2009
5,795
0
0
KL
orionmystery.blogspot.com
#9
If you just want to try macro, then dcr250 is fine. DCR250 on a 50mm f1.8 will get you to 0.4:1

The IQ won't be as good for sure. I once used an MSN202 on my Tamron SP90 before. I could get 3:1 with that setup, but the result was lousy.

Take a look at these, all SP90 + MSN202, all 3:1 at F22!

The in-focus area are fine...it's how the raynox handle OOF/bokeh areas that suck. It goes from in focus to completely out of focus so abruptly. I don't get that with the MPE...and that gives a false impression that the MPE offers bigger DOF...



 

Last edited:

andugo

New Member
Dec 16, 2009
59
0
0
#10
I am a nikon d90 user... thinking invest a nikon 105mm macro... i heard 3rd party lens is slower in focusing... is tat true?
 

TheChef

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2008
2,304
0
0
Where the action is
#12
I am a nikon d90 user... thinking invest a nikon 105mm macro... i heard 3rd party lens is slower in focusing... is tat true?
All I paid is around $110 to get these shots using Raynox 250 filter and this is my second attempt on macro shots. It is extremely simple to get a decent macro shot with Raynox. If you pay >$1K for your lens, you should expect your pics to be much much better. If not, buy a Raynox.



 

Last edited:

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#13
Many macro lens now can attain 1:1 magnification but only some filters like Raynox can help to turn your normal lens to macro but not with 1:1 until you stack a few of them. The moment more glass filters are stack together, you can see a deterioration in IQ and will have CA around the edges.

Dedicated Macro lens are invented for a good reason.
Nope magnification of Raynox depends on ur lens focal length, if i remember correctly, can go up to 11:4 times magnification at 300mm (i assume 35mm equivalent). But rather useless at 2.75X maginification cuz of how close u have to get, unless ur shooting dust or something.
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#14
Plus, the hassle of moving the whole rig back and forth to get the subject in focus.

Not easy to use, the Raynox. I know of those who gave up and bought a dedicated macro lens instead. :)
 

NovJoe

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2009
5,650
0
0
~Sunny Little Island~
#15
Nope magnification of Raynox depends on ur lens focal length, if i remember correctly, can go up to 11:4 times magnification at 300mm (i assume 35mm equivalent). But rather useless at 2.75X maginification cuz of how close u have to get, unless ur shooting dust or something.
Well, I'm not sure how much magnification Raynox can give you on a 300mm so you may be right at that point.

To me, macro lens are built for a reason. More DOF control and 1:1 capability. I will still stack my Raynox when I want greater magnification.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#16
Well, I'm not sure how much magnification Raynox can give you on a 300mm so you may be right at that point.

To me, macro lens are built for a reason. More DOF control and 1:1 capability. I will still stack my Raynox when I want greater magnification.
Yup I would get a macro lens for more DOF control but there's a reason why there are alternatives like extension tubes and Raynox, it's for those who can't afford a macro lens or can't really decide if they are really into macro photography.
 

chooz

New Member
Aug 14, 2007
264
3
0
Singapore
#17
Image quality from a close-up filters will never match that from a dedicated macro lens. But it is cheap and allows you to use your existing lens. It is suitable for you as long as you are not too demanding on sharpness, and the pictures are mainly for your own enjoyment and exploration into the "tiny" world.

I am using a 18-200 mm lens with a cheap single element non-coated +2 filter. I posted some pictures in another thread (post #204):

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=481860&page=11

These are before any photoshop was done to them. I did some unsharp mask to them later and the resulting pictures are much better.
 

Cutesperm

New Member
Apr 18, 2008
149
0
0
#18
just to chips in a bit.
Some ppl just use close up filter if they wanted to travel light and save space in their bag. :)
 

ManWearPants

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2008
4,200
6
38
Singapore
#19
IMO, a close up filter should be used as its name implies, closed up to the subject and not as a macro replacement. Application I can think of are landscape when you want to highlight a subject in the foreground. I have a 4x close up filter on my 50mm and it just does not make the cut to shoot insects or stigma of a flower.
 

andugo

New Member
Dec 16, 2009
59
0
0
#20
Raynox DCR 150 Macro Filter or 250? which is better?
 

Top Bottom