Canon 500D Close-up on a Nikon? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/26/2005 12:34:15 AM · #1

I'm thinking of getting this Canon filter (close-up lens really) to use on my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR in order to do closer work. Anybody have nay experience with this? Or do you know if it will reduce the closest focus distance on my lens? How about mag factor?

BTW - Nikon makes close-up lenes but none that I have found in 77mm.

Edit: maybe this will help.
Canon 500D Close-up lens

or maybe these:
Hoya Set

Message edited by author 2005-12-26 00:53:26.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

12/26/2005 01:28:32 AM · #2

Try here. Sounds like useful info for you.

DanSig

12/26/2005 06:52:42 AM · #3

I bougt some HOYA closeup filters last year, I have +2 and +4 filters, but I never use them, did some experiments with my 70-200L and my 17-40L , but the outcome was really bad, you have to crop about 60% off the picture because the edges get really ugly and blurry.

I'd say save your money and get a decent macrolens

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

12/26/2005 07:24:07 AM · #4

Originally posted by DanSig:

The 500D should be a lot better, as it has two elements, apparently. I'm actually thinking of selling my 100mm macro lens and getting a 500D, as there is no room in my camera bag for the macro lens and I don't often do macros.

ralph

Nikon Z9

12/26/2005 09:07:46 AM · #5

have you looked at Extention tubes instead?
my complaint(s) about close up lenses is they degrade the optical quaility of the lens and they can exhibit ghosting.
extention tubes do neither since the yare just empty tubes (but get the ones with electrical contacts)

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

12/26/2005 09:34:37 AM · #6

I've never used the 500D myself, so my opinion should be taken with a pinch of salt but... i don't think "ooh, it has TWO elements instead of one!" is sufficient justification to assume the quality will be anything short of atrocidous - in fact, any sample images i've seen have either had quite nasty chromatic aberration (which might just be because of the lens behind it), or have been resized too small to make out the quality and sharpness at all. I would personally advocate extension tubes every time - although you may lose more light, you lose none of the sharpness of your original lens, no added chromatic aberration or distortions, and you will have more predictable control of depth of field (automatic extension tubes aren't cheap, but are still cheaper than the dual-element version of the 500)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/26/2005 10:48:46 AM · #7

Originally posted by riot:

Well, actually, it is. A single element will always have pretty poor performance, it will show CA for sure, and if it is not aspherical, it will show spherical abberation as well.
The doublet designs, like the 500D, are in a class called "achromatic", they have zero CA at two separate wavelngths, not just one as is true for single element design. Sperical abberration can also be corrected somewhat with the doublet. It's the least expensive way to get decent optical performance in on of these "diopters."
Coatings will reduce, though not eliminate ghosting. Use of a hood with the diopter can minimize it further, but may not be possible in all situations due to the need to focus close.
All in all, the 500D has pretty good optical performance, though it will never replace a dedicated macro lens. I've seen beautiful results from this adapter, but as a qualifier, I have not shot with it myself.
With regard to extension tubes, they will also degrade optical performance, which seems strange since they have no optical elements. What they do, however, is magnify the center of the image circle, so any softness, CA, etc., in the lens they are used with will be magnified as well. When used with a sharp prime, the degradation is often not noticable.

Nikon MF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AIS

12/26/2005 12:52:21 PM · #8

Thanks to all for the opinions and info. The article Alan linked was interesting. I'm leaning to the Canon 500D as it seems the best compromise overall. The Hoya kit are single pieces of glass and extension tubes seem more cumbersome to use as they go before the lens. Seems worth it to try a simple system that just screws on the end of a good lens and not have to carry or buy a dedicated Nikon 105.

It will be a few weeks I'm sure but after I get it I'll play around and post some shots of how it came out.

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

12/26/2005 02:45:17 PM · #9

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

extension tubes seem more cumbersome to use as they go before the lens. Seems worth it to try a simple system that just screws on the end of a good lens

Not to press the point or anything, but you'll probably spend a lot more time screwing and unscrewing something on the filter ring than you would quickly bayonet-mounting something on the body before the lens :P

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

12/26/2005 03:26:03 PM · #10

The formula to remember with extension tubes is magnification = extension/focal length. So with a 50mm lens (at infinity, or with no built-in extension) you would need 50mm of extension to get to 1:1 which is practical. However to get the same magnification (1:1) with the 70-200 @ 200 you would need 200mm of extension which is not practical and if it were would have massive light fall off (inverse square law).

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

12/26/2005 04:00:36 PM · #11

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

True, however it's a very different story when you focus nearer the lens' minimum focusing distance - depending on the internal design of the lens, you may get quite a dramatic magnification with much shorter tubes.

EricMGB1974

Nikon D700

12/26/2005 04:22:13 PM · #12

I use a Nikon 4T (the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 500D in 52mm size) on a Nikon 105 f/2.8 Micro and a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and have no complaints with quality from the doublet design. I would assume that the 500D's quality would be comparable to the 4T since they share a similar design. I previously had a Hoya Close Up set and quality there was not acceptable. If you're looking to save space then the 500D may be your only real option. A set of extension tubes isn't all that much smaller than a 105mm Micro.

12/26/2005 05:46:30 PM · #13

Thanks Eric. Seems like good advice.

hate to go to the dark side and buy Canon. (LOL)
Wonder why Nikon does not make a 77mm close up?