Macro filters. Never used em. Any advice?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/26/2003 01:36:41 PM · #1

I was at the camera store today and saw that I could make my 100-300 into a nice macro lens. Way back when, I had macro lenses and never had to deal with filters, but now have to make due. It came with three filters, a +1, +2 and a +4. Anybody ever used these? Good? Bad? Ugly? Advice?

justine

Canon EOS-50D

12/26/2003 01:57:21 PM · #2

I looked at filters but went with the Sigma 105mm. It's really nice on the 300D. Of course I didn't have it befor the challenge. :(

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

12/26/2003 02:10:22 PM · #3

I don't have a DSLR, but I do use those macro filters. I like them quite a bit. Of course, the more glass you have in front of your lense, the more careful you have to be, but I haven't noticed much degradation of image quality or anything.

12/26/2003 02:33:21 PM · #4

Well, could be either good, bad, or really ugly! Better ones can do a very respectable job. Look for those that are multicoated, will usually indicate better quality. Buy locally or from an e-tialer with a good return policy & test the bejesus out of 'em as soon as you get 'em. Using with a longer lens is a great choice, you're dealing with light rays passing nearly normal to the glass surface, so less CA.
Another good possibility: pick up a set of extension tubes. They add NO glass to the light path, and so do not degrade the lens performance. they will enable closer focus, but you will not be able to focus to infinity with the extension tube installed. Do test them with the lenses that you intend to use them with. Canon sells both 12mm and 25mm tubes, they can be stacked. Kenko also makes extension tubes for the Canon mount, at somewhat lower cost.
Yet another option for really high magnification is getting the 50mm f/1.8 lens and reversing it.
If you really get into macro photography, you'l probably end up taking more than one of the above paths. As Justine posted, a dedicated macro lens is also a great investment, and both the Sigma 105mm and canon 100mm lenses are great performers. I personally prefer the Canon, namely the latest version with ring USM (fast AF, full time manual focus w/o need to switch between). Also makes a fantastic portrait lens.
My macro toolkit includes the Canon 100/2.8 macro USM with a 12mm extension tube and also a Canon 2.0x II teleconverter (the 2.0x II must be used with the extension tube to eliminate mechanical interference with this lens). The 100/2.8 + extension + 2.0 converter gives me about 2.13x magnification at closest focus. Close enough to do this.

Edited to correct link.

Message edited by author 2003-12-26 14:35:02.

12/26/2003 02:46:56 PM · #5

Originally posted by kirbic:

...snip...Another good possibility: pick up a set of extension tubes. They add NO glass to the light path, and so do not degrade the lens performance. they will enable closer focus, but you will not be able to focus to infinity with the extension tube installed. ....

I'm having a difficult time understanding this "extension tube" concept. What is the purpose of this, and how does adding just [i]length[i] to the lens help with closer focus. Hate to sound stupid, but I'm having trouble getting my mind around this.

12/26/2003 03:02:19 PM · #6

Excellent information. I looked at some extension tubes also. I also hear the Canon 100 2.8 was a great portrait lense with the 300D/10D body. Sounds like a great investment. I'll try out the filters in the morning so see the GBU of them. Perhaps I can post some samples here for other scrutiny?

12/26/2003 03:13:41 PM · #7

Originally posted by lhall:

Originally posted by kirbic:
...snip...Another good possibility: pick up a set of extension tubes. They add NO glass to the light path, and so do not degrade the lens performance. they will enable closer focus, but you will not be able to focus to infinity with the extension tube installed. ....

I'm having a difficult time understanding this "extension tube" concept. What is the purpose of this, and how does adding just [i]length[i] to the lens help with closer focus. Hate to sound stupid, but I'm having trouble getting my mind around this.

By simply moving the lens farther from the sensor, you're basically messing with the optical design, and without going into gory details of the optics involved, the effect is to enable much closer focussing. At the same time, the light rays are spreading out (diverging) as they depart the back element of the lens and approach the film (sensor) so the farther they travel, the more magnification. You can get some very dramatic magnification with just a 50mm lens and a long extension tube (or bellows, for adjustable magnification). The downside is that the working distance (the distance from the front glass to the subject) can become very short, and there is considerable light fall-of (you're spreading the light over larger area). You also lose infinity focus, but since the purpose is to do macro work, that's of no consequence.
The technique works best with lenses of normal (50mm) or longer focal length. Works with zooms as well. For instance with my Canon 70-200, adding the 12mm extension tube roughly doubles the magnification, however the range of distances that I can focus within is quite limited. Farthest focus ranges from 12 feet at 200mm to about 2.5 feet at 70mm, and nearest focus is about 3 feet at 200mm and 1.5 feet at 70mm.
Although they don't provide for alot of flexibility, the extension ubes are a relatively inexpensive way to add a bit of versatility to the lenses you already have.

12/26/2003 03:59:03 PM · #8

OK, I couldn't wait, so I ran a quick test using the #2 and the #4 together. It's cloudy and windy outside so the shots were done very quickly. Here is the best of 6 test shots which from shooting to here took all of 15 minutes. BTW, the berry is a little more than a quarter of an inch.

Message edited by author 2003-12-26 16:00:30.

12/26/2003 04:02:16 PM · #9

@ kirbic: Thank you for the explanation-that helps a lot.

Since I cannot afford more lenses for my camera (I currently have 35-80 and 80-200, and plan to get a 50mm), would it be safe to say that I can help to maximize my "macro" potential with an extension tube, and I can help to maximize my "zoom" potential with the canon 1/4x teleconverter??

Message edited by author 2003-12-26 16:03:13.

12/26/2003 04:20:18 PM · #10

Here is another crop of the same image. 3 minute crop. hahaha

12/26/2003 05:19:19 PM · #11

Originally posted by lhall:

Linda,
With regard to the extension tube, yes, and I would recommend buying them as a set, it's the most economical. You can get the three-piece Kenko set for about what you'd pay for one of the Canon tubes.
With regard to the Canon teleconverters, they only work with certain Canon lenses (typically the very expensive "L" lenses). Other lenses have a mechanical interference problem; the converter can only be mounted with a 12mm or longer extension tube between the lens and converter, meaning the combination can only be used for macro work, since infinity focus is not possible.
The Tamron SP and Kenko 1.4x converters probably will work work with your lenses; look through B&H's offerings (search on Canon 1.4x), and read the detailed information for the three non-Canon 1.4x converters. You will really need to test the converter to be sure of correct operation with your particular lenses. Be very careful if the converter's front element sticks out beyond the mount! trying to mate a converter like this (specifically the Canon & Sigma converters) with non-recommended lenses may damage both the converter and lens. Autofocus may not work with a converter mounted if the lens is too "slow" to begin with. Rule of thumb is take your max. aperture & add 1 stop, e.g. f/4 + 1 stop = f/5.6; if the result is numerically larger than 5.6, autofocus may not work. to "add 1 stop", take the f number of your max. aperture and multiply by 1.4, e.g. 4 * 1.4 = 5.6

12/26/2003 05:20:22 PM · #12

Originally posted by deafwolf:

Here is another crop of the same image. 3 minute crop. hahaha

Looks like those diopters are giving you pretty good results!

12/26/2003 05:27:47 PM · #13

I have to admit Fritz, I expected less clarity than I got. Not a bad set of filters. Hopefully I'll have some good sun tomorrow to try some more.

12/26/2003 05:34:45 PM · #14

Originally posted by deafwolf:

I have to admit Fritz, I expected less clarity than I got. Not a bad set of filters. Hopefully I'll have some good sun tomorrow to try some more.

I'd agree! Was the tighter crop you posted close to 100%? If so, you are getting very sharp and CA-free results. The best you can hope for!

12/26/2003 05:38:36 PM · #15

Was the tighter crop you posted close to 100%?

No, about 55-65%. The detail at 100% was amaizing, but it's so close it looks like a small planetoid instead of a sriveled berry.

12/26/2003 05:41:48 PM · #16

@ kirbic: Thanks so much for both the information and your advice. Plan to go to the camera store next week to scope out the converter issue.

@ deafwolf: Your test results with those filters are amazing! I just got that set, but haven't really had a chance to try them out - you've got me anxious to go play around with them now.

12/26/2003 05:45:16 PM · #17

Ok, I had to try it. Here is 100%. Can't wait for good sunlight.

12/26/2003 05:46:30 PM · #18

Linda, thanks. This was a 15 minute test. I can't wait to do it with good lighting and a decent subject. Post your test shots when you have time. I'd love to see them.

12/26/2003 08:00:05 PM · #19

OK, I only had time to play with it for a few minutes here at my "desktop studio", using one of my earrings! This is a +2 on a 35-80 EF lens. Not great, but I'll play with it some more tomorrow. Seems like the focusing "window" is very small.

Can't get the "thumb" link thing right.

First Try

Message edited by author 2003-12-26 20:02:20.

12/27/2003 11:50:36 AM · #20

Linda,

Wow, that looks closer than the one I took with the #1 and #4 together. Must be from the shorter lens?

12/27/2003 12:09:31 PM · #21

EXIF says that particular shot was taken at the 80mm end of the 35-80 (taking into account also, I guess, the 1.6 factor). I was pleased with how close it got, but disappointed that the clarity wasn't "even". Plan to play with it some more with the different filters. Somewhere, someone said that there is a particular order that you should use to stack these filters - what is the proper order?

12/27/2003 12:19:17 PM · #22

Seems like I saw someone say that the strongest should be closest to the lense. I would also take off any skylite or UV filters before putting it on. At least that the way I did it.