closeup filters - opinions and optins

ranarama

ranarama

ranarama

Associate
Joined
21 Aug 2004
Posts
832
Location
Harrow
I've had a closeup filter (+3) for about a week and I really like it. It's turned my Tamron 24-135 somewhere near a macro lens for around £30. I didn't know what to expect from it quality wise but I have to say I'm fairly impressed (although I am easily impressed so don't let that mislead you). What do you think about this option in comparison to extention tubes and real macro lenses. Both of which come in at quite a bit more money.
 
ashtray_head said:
we need images man!!! :D
Click to expand...

Just off to work. I'll put some up tonight. :)

EDIT: Actually, I managed to get some done before going in. Not great pictures I know but it gives you an idea.

1.jpg

EXIF:
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Image Date: 2006:02:02 10:41:04
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 135.0mm
CCD Width: 4.50mm
Exposure Time: 30.000 s
Aperture: f/36.0
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)



2.jpg

EXIF: (Lost for some reason so from original RAW file)
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Image Date: 2006:02:02 10:41:04
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 135.0mm
CCD Width: 4.50mm
Exposure Time: 1/4 s
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

To compare I did another shot tonight without the filter on. This is as clsoe as I could get...
3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I got a 13 pound lens
cracking stuff on my 28-105mm USM

for comparison, non cropped, just decreased focal length...
normal
macro1sm.jpg

with the addon
macro2sm.jpg


not bad for 13 notes eh?? will take it for a proper test run tomorrow if the light is good
 
Just added a retake from tonight for comparison without the filter. I've left them together as I thought it would make the scrolling easier. That was taken at f36 on a 10s exposure. I meant to do a f5.6 but put the camera away before I realised I'd not taken one (buffoon).

If nothing else I've surprised myself as I thought the difference in ability to focus closer in would be better. Maybe I should get a +4. Having said that I'm loving the really shallow DOF it's giving me.

Any people with proper macro lenses care to comment?
 
Hullo! I have a "proper" macro lens! (Sigma 50mm jobby).

I think the only massive advantage of a "proper" macro lens is sharpness. Not that your shots aren't reasonably sharp, it's just that I can get really, really sharp results with mine.

The thing with most macro lenses is that they're a hefty investment, and are often big heavy and bulky - and at an "odd" focal length that you're not gonna get a huge amount of use out of elsewhere.

The sigma (for me) was a more reasonable investment as it's not massive (although big for a 50mm prime) and also doubles as a great, fast 50mm prime - I use it all the time, infact, I use it more for non macro shots than I do macro.
 
that from the exif data?
probs true. that was taking a few shots, the one used was natural light instead of flash
annoyingly it's my day off and some nice light would be handy....however, it's miserable outside!
bah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom