clos-up filters

[dennis_hudgins]

<p>I have a Nikon D3100 and I want to photography flowers, insects, etc and I would like to know what is better, close-up filters and or extension tubes? I do not want to spend the big bucks for a macro lens since they can be pricey. What models would be compatible with the camera?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Some lenses work better with tubes, some work better with closeup lenses. What lens did you buy with your D3100?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Extension tubes that allow automatic exposure/focus are relatively expensive, but IN GENERAL, as an overall principle, normally will work better than close-up optics on a lens. You will lose light, the longer the tubes are, so tripods become a necessity (though are a good idea in any case).</p>

<p>Close-focus on many lenses (sometimes misleadingly called, even labeled, "macro") will usually be enough for flowers.</p>

<p>Close-up lenses/filters (aka, positive diopters, etc.) simply screw into the front of your existing lens (you have to get the right sizes), do not cause any exposure differences, and AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE will usually work well enough in the center, but usually cause at least some loss of image quality. Did I mention, they are relatively cheap? Some more elaborate close-up attachments may have more than one optical element, but are still not going to be as good as a real macro lens or even a normal lens on extensions of some kind.</p>

<p>Only you can decide what compromises you're willing to accept. A "real" (i.e., 1:1 scale) macro lens is not only close focusing, but also optically designed for this sort of thing, so is going to be much better optically.</p>

<p>ALL close work involves dealing with shallow depth-of-field for focus.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I agree with JDM. However there are some darn good closeup filters out there, the interesting thing is really good closeup filters can be just about as expensive as extension tubes. I actually have seen some work by nature photographers like John Shaw who once swore off closeup filters now regularly use them.</p>

<p>I thought a nature photography class about a decade ago and all we could really use were relatively cheap closeup filters. I have to say those students made some darn good images with the Closeups.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I'm a snob. I really only use extension tubes or macro lenses.</p>

[Two23]

<p>A Canon 500D on your 55-200mm VR lens would do what you want. There is also the Marumi brand, which are very good.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>OK, first for Dennis. You messaged me with your lenses. The 55-200mm works well with tubes. The 25mm Kenko (a painful $100 for a single tube) or the 12, 20, 36mm set (an even more painful $180) are both good matches. If you get the set, you'll probably use the 20 mostly, and the 36 occasionally. You'll probably never stack the tubes, that's asking a lot of the lens. The AF system will attempt to work, but it will be erratic, so practice manually focusing.</p>

<p>Your other lens, the 18-55mm, behaves horribly on tubes. The image quality at the long end is not good, and at the short end, the focal point moves inside the front element, and you can't even focus the lens on your subject. That lens needs a strong diopter, like a Canon 250D. But those are expensive, out of stock everywhere, and the 18-55 with a 250D does not perform as well as a 55-200 with tubes.</p>

<p>So, your best bet is to forget about closeup lenses and forget about the 18-55, and get tubes for the 55-200mm. The Kenkos work, and are reliable. There are "clones" of the Kenkos, that work to differing degrees. You need something with electrical contacts, the D3100 won't meter unless the tube has contacts. I don't know enough about the close to recommend a set.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Now, for the rest of you...</p>

<p>It's a pity that it's a D3100, and won't meter with MF lenses unless you install a dandelion chip. A used 55mm f2.8 or f3.5 micro-Nikkor costs about the same as a 3 tube Kenko set ($180).<br /><br /><br>

I've set students up that way before, tracked down a 55mm micro-Nikkor + PK-13 tube for about $200. But only on cameras that meter with MF stuff, like a D200 or D300, or a Canon. (Nikon macros + $19 Nikon to Canon adapter). To get a 55mm up and running on a D3100 means about $150 for the lens, $60 for a Dandelion mod, $100 for the Kenko 25mm tube. You might as well track down a used 60mm f2.8 AF Nikkor or a Tamron 90mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the interesting thing is really good closeup filters can be just about as expensive as extension tubes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not "just about", unfortunately. That dang 77mm Canon 500D for my 70-200mm f2.8 VR costs $144, a bit more than the Kenko 25mm tube at $99, but not quite as bad as the 3 tube Kenko set (12, 20, 36mm) for $179.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately I'm a snob. I really only use extension tubes or macro lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The true snob knows that there are some lenses that work a lot better with closeup lenses than tubes. The 70-200mm 2.8 is better behaved with a Canon 500D +2 diopter than with a tube. The 85mm f1.4 (which should be shot wide open as a macro, obviously) responds well to a "split" approach, it looks better with a +2 diopter and a 12mm tube than it does with either a 20mm tube or a pair of +2 diopters (and one of the 500D is reversed for stacking.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>OK, OK, Uncle, I was speaking in general terms and most +3 screw-ins cost less than the AF extension tubes. Those 95mm screw-in filters can be pricey. However, a whole Hoya set of close-up lenses in 67mm size is only around US$65.</p>

<p>Of course, when you get into <em>cult</em> objects like some brands that shall-not-be-named, then the costs are like the amount more you pay for a Rollex than for a Timex -- these are not just filters, they are also bling.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>A general advantage of extension tubes over "diopters" is the greater working distance offered by them. Still, nothing beats a true macro lens.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Dennis, I love to use an extension tube on my 300mm lens for close-up work because that set up really blurs the background nicely. Extension tubes work on my tele zoom lenses but I find that screw in close up lenses are easier to use on zooms. I have an old set of Nikon 3, 4, 5 and 6 T achromatic (dual element) close-up lenses and a Canon 77mm 500D achromatic and recently purchased two large diameter Marumi DHG achromatic macro lenses for wide angle zoom underwater photography that allow better close focus on the virtual image that my underwater housing dome port creates. The Marumi achromatics come in a fair variety of sizes and are good value and less expensive than the excellent Canon 500D. John Shaw's book close-ups in nature seems to stay relevant I am always looking for my copy. Good hunting. Andy</p>

[roy_nash]

<p>Hi. I've used close-up lenses for flowers on various cameras for years and find they are easier to use and far cheaper than extension tubes. The main advantage is that they do not require longer exposures. You can also use the same close-ups on any camera or lens that takes filters including video cameras. Provided you avoid the cheaper ones the problem of edge definition is overstated unless you stack them or use the higher diopter ones. You can always crop the edges anyway and sometimes a little loss of edge definition can look creative. The achromatic close-ups are the best. Also consider using a Raynox DCR-250 which is a high quality macro lens with it's own adaptor. <br>

Whichever approach you take, flower photography close up can be challenging in terms of depth of field and focusing. You will be surprised how fast a flower can move ! That's why I prefer short exposures. Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi. I've used close-up lenses for flowers on various cameras for years and find they are easier to use and far cheaper than extension tubes. The main advantage is that they do not require longer exposures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is only partially true. Yes, if you can do something like taking a 100mm f2.8 lens and:</p>

<ul>

<li>Add a +4 diopter closeup, like a Canon 250D. Now you're now at 0.4x magnification and still remain at an effective f2.8.</li>

<li>Add 40mm of tubes (well, I only have a 36mm, but we're going for the same 0.4x magnification, so let's imagine we have a 40mm) and get 0.4x magnification but drop to an effective f4.0.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, it sounds a lot like we lose a stop with the tube, and don't lose it with the closeup lens. But that's only true if we're shooting wide open (and yes, I do that a surprisingly large number of times. 85mm f1.4 with the +2 Canon 500D). But, for the majority of macro, the "paper thin" DOF is objectionable, and we end up stopping down, often way past the lens's diffraction limits. (I've shot at effective f45 and f64 before on 35mm, which is a recipe for insanely soft images, but works at "web size" or for 1/4 page inserts and stuff).</p>

<p>Depth of field is dependent only on reproduction ratio and aperture. So, if you frame your flower at a certain size, then pick an aperture to give you a desired depth of field, you've got the same exposure time on either a dedicated macro lens, a regular lens with an added closeup lens, and a regular lens on tubes. The closeup lens just makes it easier to know what that aperture is, because you don't have to screw around with "effective aperture" calculations.</p>

<p>But the other thing that's going to get you is that the tubes will probably yield a "nicer" picture, by most macrophotography standards. You'll be at 350mm from the front (OK, the front node) of the 100mm on 40mm tube. You'll be at 250mm from the front of the closeup lens. The shot with the tube will include literally half the background area as the one with the closeup lens, so the background will look cleaner, less cluttered. That's the reason I do so much flower work with the 200mm macro: it includes less that 1/10 the background area as my 60mm macro. With 10 times cleaner backgrounds, the flowers look like studio studies.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>OK Dennis, I teach a 3 credit hour class every semester in CU-Macro. The first thing I have them do is get a set of +diopters (most people incorrectly call them filters, they are lenses). A set should have +1,+2,+3 and than a higer power that is often called "macro". they simply screw in and no exposure increase is required because as the focal length decresases (causing the existing lens to film/sensor distance to be the equivalent of extending the lens and simultaneously the f ratio increases because the diameter of the unchanging lens establishes an increased "f stop". You can stack them as well as using them singly. I require that my students have also either a 25mm extension tube or 2X tele extender. In addition they can borrow from our department 100mm macro lenses. However, using the cameras (we have been all digital for over 6 years) that they have in addition the +diopters gives them the comfort of very good close up capability. For me personally, among other things in my past I'm a graduate of USN medical/scientific school, Brooks and other training situations and several years as a scientific photographer before and after other areas of photography/cinematography. I've been shooting close up and beyond using everything from microscopes to telescopes and everything in between, it has been a pleasure for me. </p>

<p>Once again, I suggest that a set of +diopters running from $35.00 to $60.00 or so bucks will give you great pleasure so that you can then decide if you wish to invest in macro lenses, tele extenders, extension tube sets and various other things.</p>

<p>Lynn </p>