Macro lense or close-up filters?

[kevin_hunt]

Whats the difference between a macro lense and the 1x, 2x, 3x, etc... close-up filters.

Does one offer higher quality than the other. Does on brand of filter offer better

quality than the other? While I've never gotten into macro photography it's mostly due

to the fact that I've never had the equipment to try it. I often find that I'd love to get

closer to something with my N80 (flowers, insects...) and cannot. The close-up filters

seem to offer a cheaper solution. I'm using a 24-85 AF-S, 18-35 and 70-300 G

lenses. Is there any reason to get a dedicated macro lense and spend the extra

money. Of course, money is an issue and I would rather carry a few filters around

than a whole new lense, I like to travel light. Thanks for any help.

 

-Kevin

[graham_line]

Starting out with good quality supplementary close-up lenses can produce some good results. If your lenses have different sizes of filter rings, you'll need to decide which you want to use, or else buy the largest size (expensive, if available) and use step-up adapters to fit them on the others. If I was looking for closeup lenses, I'd stick to Nikons or a respected line like Hoya-Kenko or B+W.

 

Another product to explore are extension tubes which fit between the lens and the body and allow closer focus with your standard lenses. I think Kenko has an Nikon AF set.

 

Quality will generally be better with a dedicated macro lens, and it will retain the infinity focus you lose with the screw-on close-up attachments. But the cost factor is 3x tubes or supplementary lenses.

 

Recommended reading on macro work in general is John Shaw's "Closeups In Nature".

[ahaohio]

Look for the reviews on the Phoenix/Vivitar (& some more names) 100 f3.5 macro.

 

This lens performs well optically and is a lot more convenient than using tubes, bellows or clise-up lenses. It is also dirt cheap.

[doug_tomchuk]

I recently bought a Nikon 105mm micro after using my 70-300 D with the 6T diopter for about 2 years. I believe the 70-300 with the diopter is an excellent way to get into macro photography. Granted, the edges may not be as sharp as with the dedicated macro lens, but softness due to the limited depth of field in 1:1 macro work is normally a greater concern.

 

If you get a 5T or 6T, and then later buy a macro lens such as the 105mm, the diopter can still be used (reversed) with a step-down ring (62mm to 52mm)to get a bit more magnification.

 

The one pain about the diopter is that you have to remove it when you switch from the close-ups to a wider view, such as when you are shooting the inside of a flower and then want to catch the whole plant.

 

Definitely search the archives on macro photography. Also, as Joe said, get John Shaw's book. In a short time, you will probably also want to consider getting an flash unit with the SC-17 cord to get it off the camera. Particularly when trying to hand-hold for insects.

 

Have fun.

[ecarter]

Unless you're a SUPER discerning photographer, a professional, or do a LOT of macro work, the close-up filters will probably be fine for you. I have a nice 200mm macro lens and it gives me excellent results, but I also got it for a steal (basically given to me) so I was lucky on that account.

 

I find, though, that tubes give me better results than the close-up lenses and aren't too much more expensive than the filters, if at all. You'll lose infinite focus with the tubes, but for macro, I don't find that is important at all - and of course, it isn't putting another piece of glass on your lens. You do lose a stop or so of light with the tubes, though so your mileage may vary, as they say.

[donald_choi]

Nothing beats a macro prime lens. They are the optically superior choice. And they are also the easiest and most convenient choice (TTL metering). Unfortunately, macro lenses are pricey. You can either go with Nikon's expensive 60mm or 105mm micro-nikkors, or you can go with the cheaper Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro. Don't let the Tamron name fool you....this is one awesome lens.

[josh a.]

Go with the Macro prime, you can use it for other purposes also. I saw a portrait done with the 60mm f/2.8, that was awsome. The 85mm PC nikkor is also multi useful, The Tamron is also a great little lens, and very inexpensive. But I would go for the 60mm f/2.8. Your get allot of use from it

 

Josh

[craig_bridge]

Macro prime lenses are much nicer to use than anything you can add to a zoom. 60mm micro prime doubles as a normal lens. A 90-105mm macro/micro prime doubles as a portrait lens. Longer focal length means more working distance at same magnification. Since you don't own a prime, you might consider getting a macro prime.

 

The Nikkor 52mm 3T/4T and 62mm Nikkor 5T/6T (and the more expensive Canon 250D/500D) twin/dual element diopters are significantly better quality wise than the single element 1x, 2x, 3x closeup diopters.

 

Put a 5T and/or 6T (yes that implies they can be stacked) on your 70-300 and you will be focusing with the zoom control and moving back and forth changing the subject distance to fine tune the focus. The focus control will be next to worthless which means disable auto focus on the lens and use AF trap focus methods or disable auto focus on the body and go manual focus. Definitely usable but not convient.

 

No experience with the Phoenix/Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 macro; however, the Tamron 90mm and Nikkor 105 micro are excellent.

[ranong]

i bought the kenko AF extension tubes from b and h for around 140, and i love 'em. no you do not need a specific "macro" lens. you can get the same results with a prime (or zoom, but the primes are a bit easier to use, or set the zoom at 85mm and go) and tubes. a macro lens basically has an internal "extension" tube, it does it all by itself. i use my 85mm with 67mm of extension, giving me slightly less than 1:1 (85mm lens and 85mm of extension is 1:1) and a working disatance of about 7 inches ish. the 135 with the 67mm extension increses the working distance and works well too. by pure luck i am also able to stack my 85mm onto the 135mm to give me 1.7X magnification and a working distance of about 1 inch. ( you will need a light meter if you use a non AF lens with the N80, but it is possible)

have fun

eddie

[jbq]

I've played with cheap "close-up filters" (62mm uncoated tiffen) on my 28-80G and 70-300G. I got good results on the 28-80, but soft on the 70-300, especially at the 300mm end where the images are unusable unless you stop it down very very very far (like f/32 to f/45).

[tcb.photo]

Hi Kevin

 

I do a lot of florals and find a macro to work best, as opposed to close up filters. I personally use the Nikkor PC 85mm f/2.8 Micro with extension tubes, if needed. But I wouln't recommend it for everyone. It's a tricky lens to master, as many of my photos will show you. I think the 60mm f/2.8 would be a great lens for the N80.

 

Rob

[arnabdas]

IF you want to get decent results for cheap, buy 5T or 6T Nikon diopters for your 70-300.

 

There are a number of reasons to get a dedicated macro lens. The cheapest (and of very good quality) option seems to be the Vivitar 100/f3.5 macro.

 

I'd really recommend the Vivitar 90 macro or the Nikon 105/f2.8 macro. They are great lenses.

[arnabdas]

I said "Vivitar 90 macro" -- not sure what I was thinking, I meant tamron 90mm/f2.8 macro.