Closeup filters for tight headshots with P67

[daniel_h_gberg]

<p>Hi!<br>

Im using my P67 more and more ( ) :)<br>

My D3 has not been used for anything serious for a looong time now :) Now I would like to be able to take close portraits /headshots with closeup filters with both my 90mm and 165mm lens, what kind of filters do you recommend and what should I think about when using them?<br>

Will they work differently on the 90mm lens vs the 165mm lens?<br>

Thankyou!</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>The 135 macro lens is not that expensive. I would just get one of those. Also the close up extenders are not that expensive. Filters (diopters for the front of the lenses) are interesting but in the long run you will probably want to spend your money on the 135 macro instead.<br>

Dennis</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>Here is a close up with the 135 macro,</p><div></div>

[dougmiles]

<p>Close-up filters are a solution for cameras having fixed lenses, for example. I've always been a bit suspicious of the optical quality of the run-of-the-mill close-up filter. These work on the principle of making the focal length shorter, causing the lens's normal extension to focus to a shorter distance. They come in different strengths; a one-diopter close-up filter will cause the lens to be focused to 1m when set to infinity focus. Of course you can additioinally use the lens's focus ring to focus even closer. A two-diopter filter leads to a 0.5m focus.<br>

I prefer extension tubes. The Pentax auto extension tubes come in a set of three thicknesses, often available individually. Try the thinnest first. The 2.8/165mm will natively focus to 5.2ft (1.6m). Pre-1986 the 4/200 focused down only to 8.2ft (2.5m) so that extension tube came out frequently. Fortunately the later 200 (with 77mm filter size) gets down to a very useful 4.9ft (1.5m) without extension tubes.<br>

I agree the 4/135mm Macro is an inexpensive and convenient solution too. It focuses to 0.75m.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>There is one advantage to using the close up diopters. They don't cut the light. The 135 macro loses a stop at full extension and the tubes lose light as well. The close up diopter would be like the Rolleinars I use on the Rolleiflex in that they make no difference to the exposure. I actually use a close up diopter on a 14 inch Artar lens I use for 8x10 for really close focus without having to extend the bellows so far. Both the close up lenses for 8x10 and the Rollei seem to maintain good optical quality.<br>

Dennis</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>One issue I have with close up diaopters is that they need to be achromatic (corrected for 2 colors) at the least, especially when used in front of the longer 165mm. Having an anti reflective coating is necessary as well. The best diopters such as the one made by Pentax for their 100mm Macro lens appears to apochromatic. Any really good diopter is going to cost. I do a lot of close up work and have opted for the Heliciod tube used in conjunction with the #2 tube instead of close up diopters. However, either path will work.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Daniel, I agree with Dennis Purdy. You can achieve quite interesting results with close-up filters. They are worth having in the kit. No, of course they do not deliver the same sort of perfection rendering as a macro or especially designed close-up lens. But a portrait is not usually requiring adherence to technical perfection all the way to the edges. In the Hasselblad system I have have some of the best close-up lenses ever made by Zeiss, but I also make use of the Zeiss Proxar. Here is a thread with a discussion on the same subject, where I show one image using standard 80mm lens and a Proxar close-up dioptre lens. (close-up filter)<br /> <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00VCXt"><strong>http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00VCXt</strong></a></p>