Possible range of magnifications with 55-200VR and close-up lenses (500D etc)?

[calvin_condon]

<p>Hi, <br>

The 55-200VR has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:4 to 1:5 when at 200mm.</p>

<p>I was wondering if anyone here has experience using close-up lenses (such as the canon 500D) on this lens, and if so, what range of magnifications are possible? I'm thinking of suggesting this to a family member as a budget-minded alternative to a dedicated macro lens. Is image quality badly affected?</p>

<p>Also, is there a way to calculate these sorts of things? I'm not actually sure how close-up lenses like that work, so I don't know the math behind any of it.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>With a 500D (+2) it is about 1:1.4. IMHO, For a budget close up lens, this lens and the 500D, 3T or 4T are not a bad set-up.<br>

<br />Zoom lens these days changes focal length as the lens is focus closer (IF). It is next to impossible to calculate easily. One size doesn't fit all.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>I've a Pentax T-95 close-up lens (filter) that does pretty good.</p>

<p>Please check</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11214871<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/11214870<br /><br /><br>

<br /><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/11212427</p>

<p>for some examples of how the T-95 works on the AF-S 55-200mm VR Nikkor lens, and a Nikon D60 body.</p>

<p> </p>

[calvin_condon]

<p>Tommy,</p>

<p>Thanks for the info!</p>

<p>Do you happen to know what the _minimum_ reproduction ratio attainable is? It would be used for photographing flowers, butterflies, etc. as well as insects or jewelry, and it would be nice if it could get to, say, 1:5 or so without removing the 500D.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Minimum is about 1:9 at 55mm with the +2 attached. Don't forget this is a 4:1 zoom so the in focus range in very good. Working distant is from 310mm to 500mm.</p>

[joel_covey]

<p>Any way to delete a duplicated message in this forum?</p>

<p>At 200mm using a +4 diopter you are down to 1.4 times lifesize. Won't be nearly as sharp as a macro taken with a good macro lens but closeup lens were the way I started.<br />Another cheap way to macros--especially if you have an unused manual lens in a drawer--is to use e-bay extension tubes and, if needed, a reversing adapter (about $20). <br />This is what I did with that type of setup <a href="

[joel_covey]

<p>At 200mm using a +4 diopter you are down to 1.4 times lifesize. Won't be nearly as sharp as a macro taken with a good macro lens but closeup lenses were the way I started.<br>

Another cheap way to macros--especially if you have an unused manual lens in a drawer--is to use e-bay extension tubes and, if needed, a reversing adapter (about $20). <br>

This is what I did with that type of setup <a href="

[sebastian_eixler]

<p>Closeup lenses are the most reasonable entry into macro photography.<br /><br />Maybe those tables are helpful.<br /><br />http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm<br />http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/5T6T.htm<br /><br />Depending on the combination of (zoom) lens and closeup lens reversing the closeup attachment may give better image quality. In this case you will need a coupling ring with male threads on both sides.<br />The next step would be buying a real macro lens.<br /><br />Reversing lenses, stacking lenses, or using extension tubes with zoom lenses can yield quality results, but is inconvenient.<br />Be aware of that many cameras need lenses / extension rings with CPU contacts for exposure metering.<br /><br /></p><div></div>