52mm diopter on a 67mm lens

[bobbuck19]

<p>Not having a macro lens I use my da50-135 with a nikon 3t or 4t diopter(sometimes even both stacked) while these diopters don't reduce the quality of the image all that much, I'm wondering what using these 52mm diopters on a 67mm front element does, essentially stopping down at the front element. I do get some vignetting with the 4t and when using both stacked. I suspect the lens is no longer a 2.8 min aperture but since I'm using this set up for macro usually don't need wide open anyhow. I eventually hope to get a macro lens but this will have to serve as my macro rig for awhile yet, so what negative effects am I suffering, and what can I do to minimize them?</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Robert, what negative effects are you seeing? If the setup is working for you, then it's not broken, and like the old adage goes: "don't fix it".</p>

<p>Why not post some sample shots? :-)</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Nikon (used to but not any more) sell a 5T and 6T diopter, they have the same power as 3T and 4T +1.5 and +3 but in 62mm filter side. </p>

[bobbuck19]

<p>Miserere, I really don't see any negative effects( though my standards are kinda low), mainly I'm just curious, one would think this is an optical no-no, most of my wildflower and orchid shots in my portfolio are shot with this setup, I'll try and put a few on the thread.</p><div></div>

[bobbuck19]

<p>Tommy, have been keeping an eye out for them on fleabay, but will probably just go with what I have until getting a macro</p><div></div>

[stemked]

<p>I used to use these types of Diopters a lot in my classes for obvious reasons; it opened up the macro world to my students who lacked macro lenses. Quality certainly is an issue. Since you have Nikon optics you should be in good shape optically. They will have coatings which should reduce glare. Cheap ones lack coatings, but you know they still can be pretty useful and decent things to tuck in your bag when the opportunity calls for them. I have noticed that even when the diopters meet the right diameter there is (with the cheaper types) a profound softness near the edges of the image. Vignetting will only make that process more profound.<br>

I would note John Shaw, who's writings and books I used a lot in my nature photo course underwent a transformation in this area. Initially I recall he seemed somewhat opposed to diopters, but his later books he became a true proponent of using them. <br>

As you can imagine the greater the diopter the more pronounced the effects on the edges are. I have a 10+ that I picked up for fun; magnifies great but the edges are pretty fuzzy.<br>

I'm sure you've found high quality diopters are not cheap. For an extra $40-50 you can probably pick up a truely excellent 90mm f2.5/2.8 Tamron macro adaptol lens. Worth considering anyway.</p>

[bobbuck19]

<p>Douglas, what is the adaptol mount? I've heard of them but don't know what they are, do you need an adapter of some kind to fit k-mount? I have several of John shaw's books (love them) thats where I heard of the Nikon T series diopters, had a couple cheaper ones but the nikons are much better.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Robert,<br>

First of all it is Adaptall (Sorry, can't spell worth a darn).<br>

Tamron makes some of their lenses that have the ability to change mounts. So you can use the same lens on a Pentax K, Pentax KA, Universal m42, Canon EOS, Nikon, Minolta, etc by purchasing the specific mount for your camera brand. They are all manual lenses (I'm pretty sure) and Tamron used to make a lot of them. Anyway the lens I noted is a surpringly good optic for the price, they are still fairly easy to find used, just remember you will also need to purchase the adaptor for your specific camera mount.</p>

<p>You can check out some of the lenses at keh. They have 90mm macros there as well as everything from 17mm all the way up to 300mm f2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=32&BC=TL&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

I have a Tamron Adaptall and I don’t recommend it. It’s hazy and has very low contrast around 1x, I think due to flare caused by light bouncing between the sensor and uncoated rear element. Sometimes you get interesting spherical reflections with it, but most of the time you just get ruined photos. The lighter the flower, the worse the effect. Bright yellow is a disaster with this lens. It’s also very soft at infinity focus.

<p>

I, too, use a diopter, Canon’s 500D, with the 50-135, and it’s a great combination for flowers, with almost ideal working distance, magnification and DOF. The only thing that detracts from the combination is the lack of tripod collar for the lens, which can be frustrating at close focus when you’re trying to frame a tight shot. I don’t want to dissuade you from getting a dedicated macro lens, I think they’re wonderful, but the extra magnification is rarely useful for flowers; even though I do take many close-up (1x) pictures of plants, mostly because I can, they aren’t interesting to look at, IMO, because undifferentiated plant tissue is, well, undifferentiated tissue.

<p>

P.S. I think the small image circle of DA lenses is the reason you’re not seeing much vignetting with the 52mm diopter.

[bobbuck19]

<p>Thanks all for the responses, have heard good things about the newer tamron 90mm macro and the pentax 100mm macro, will eventually get one of these, the tamron is significantlly cheaper and from what I hear comparable to the pentax.</p>

[hagar]

<p>The tamron is a pretty sweet lens .. here are two jpegs straight out of the k10d.. just cropped and a slight unsharp mask after resizing</p><div></div>

[hagar]

<p>#2</p><div></div>