macro or close up filters?

WhaleShark wrote:
For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.


A true macro lens is better. It is also more expensive. Close up
lenses are a lot cheaper and work, but not as well.

The question really is "Which is best for you." Only you can answer
that. If good quality results and some slight inconvenience is good enough
for you, than go for the close up lenses. Make sure they will get you close
enough. Note that most information available on how close they will allow
you to focus is based on 35 mm and the lens factor (like 1.5) for your
camera will also apply to those numbers.

If you want the very best results, with the ability to focus on
something the same size as your sensor and money is not the controlling
factor, then a true macro is your answer.

Good Luck

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Joseph,

I think you must mean life size on a full frame sensor, correct?

With a Nikon, for example, you have to apply the 1.5 crop factor and the
image captured will actually appear 1.5:1.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Best,
Dave
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
WhaleShark wrote:
For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.


A true macro lens is better. It is also more expensive. Close up
lenses are a lot cheaper and work, but not as well.

The question really is "Which is best for you." Only you can answer
that. If good quality results and some slight inconvenience is good
enough
for you, than go for the close up lenses. Make sure they will get you
close
enough. Note that most information available on how close they will allow
you to focus is based on 35 mm and the lens factor (like 1.5) for your
camera will also apply to those numbers.

If you want the very best results, with the ability to focus on
something the same size as your sensor and money is not the controlling
factor, then a true macro is your answer.

Good Luck

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

DSphotog wrote:
Joseph,

I think you must mean life size on a full frame sensor, correct?

No, a true macro will give you life size on any size sensor that is not
larger than the field it covers. With a full size sensor it would cover an
original area the size of a standard 35mm frame, the same size as a full
size sensor. However since most current digitals are smaller, it will only
cover the smaller "cropped" size. It will still focus at exactly the same
distance as it did on the 35 mm and the actual image produced will be the
same, but not all if it will fit on the smaller sensor.

Excuse me if I did not understand your comment.


With a Nikon, for example, you have to apply the 1.5 crop factor and
the image captured will actually appear 1.5:1.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Best,
Dave
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
WhaleShark wrote:
For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.


A true macro lens is better. It is also more expensive. Close
up lenses are a lot cheaper and work, but not as well.

The question really is "Which is best for you." Only you can
answer that. If good quality results and some slight inconvenience
is good enough for you, than go for the close up lenses. Make sure
they will get you close enough. Note that most information
available on how close they will allow you to focus is based on 35
mm and the lens factor (like 1.5) for your camera will also apply to
those numbers.

If you want the very best results, with the ability to focus on
something the same size as your sensor and money is not the
controlling factor, then a true macro is your answer.

Good Luck

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

DSphotog wrote:
My self correcting filter just kicked in. Life size is after all,
life size isn't it.

Sorry for the incorrect post.

Dave

I guess I should read all the messages before replying to the first. ;-)

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:48:18 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:45:57 +0200, WhaleShark
wrote:

For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

As has been already said several times the macro is better, but there
is an inexpensive alternative for cameras with interchangeable lenses
although it only works *close* and that is a "reverse adapter". it is
nothing more than an adapter ring that has the proper camera mount on
one side and threads for the filter ring on the other. They work
quite well for very close work. OTOH they are strictly manual, or I
should say I've never seen one that wasn't manual only. I don't see
how they'd be able to do the linking.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.


The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.

A reverse mounted lens does work very well but as pointed out,
you must get "VERY" close & depth of field is very narrow. I have
used this method with my Canon A70 with both it's focus manually set
to infinity & likewise for the reversed EF 50mm f1.8 II lens that I
used. Focus then becomes a function of moving a tiny bit closer or
further from your subject. Even with both lens set to infinity, a
manually selected smallest aperture (f8), the A70 set to full
telephoto (max. zoom), you still have to hold very steady (tripod if
possible) & have very good lighting.

Because you must get so close, the camera/lenses/you can block
the lighting so having a small reflector or 2 to redirect sunlight on
your target helps a lot (I use a piece of a silver car window sun
shield as a cheap homemade reflector). If you have lot's of patients,
this method can yield incredible results at very reasonable expense,
however if you don't have lots of patience, you will very quickly give
up on this approach. I'm strongly considering building some type of
fine focus rail to mount the camera & lenses on so I can mount it all
on a tripod & focus by moving everything in/our with close precision
via the focusing rail adjustment.

Macro is a whole new world, I have a few pictures of tiny ants
that came to collect a little bit of sugar I placed outside. They
look like giant ants climbing a mound of raw uncut diamonds, which was
the tiny sugar granules.

A quality Macro lens like Canon's EF 100mm f2.8, if you have a
compatible camera is worth the investment "if" Macro is more than just
a curiosity. For me, I am not yet done exploring with what I have but
if I chosse to continue in macro photography on a regular basis, a
Canon Macro EF 100mm f2.8 will be on my wish list to add to my Digital
Rebel/300D. Hope something I offered proves helpful.

Respectfully, DHB

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:48:18 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:45:57 +0200, WhaleShark
wrote:

For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

As has been already said several times the macro is better, but there
is an inexpensive alternative for cameras with interchangeable lenses
although it only works *close* and that is a "reverse adapter". it is
nothing more than an adapter ring that has the proper camera mount on
one side and threads for the filter ring on the other. They work
quite well for very close work. OTOH they are strictly manual, or I
should say I've never seen one that wasn't manual only. I don't see
how they'd be able to do the linking.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.


The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.

A reverse mounted lens does work very well but as pointed out,
you must get "VERY" close & depth of field is very narrow. I have
used this method with my Canon A70 with both it's focus manually set
to infinity & likewise for the reversed EF 50mm f1.8 II lens that I
used. Focus then becomes a function of moving a tiny bit closer or
further from your subject. Even with both lens set to infinity, a
manually selected smallest aperture (f8), the A70 set to full
telephoto (max. zoom), you still have to hold very steady (tripod if
possible) & have very good lighting.

Because you must get so close, the camera/lenses/you can block
the lighting so having a small reflector or 2 to redirect sunlight on
your target helps a lot (I use a piece of a silver car window sun
shield as a cheap homemade reflector). If you have lot's of patients,
this method can yield incredible results at very reasonable expense,
however if you don't have lots of patience, you will very quickly give
up on this approach. I'm strongly considering building some type of
fine focus rail to mount the camera & lenses on so I can mount it all
on a tripod & focus by moving everything in/our with close precision
via the focusing rail adjustment.

Macro is a whole new world, I have a few pictures of tiny ants
that came to collect a little bit of sugar I placed outside. They
look like giant ants climbing a mound of raw uncut diamonds, which was
the tiny sugar granules.

A quality Macro lens like Canon's EF 100mm f2.8, if you have a
compatible camera is worth the investment "if" Macro is more than just
a curiosity. For me, I am not yet done exploring with what I have but
if I chosse to continue in macro photography on a regular basis, a
Canon Macro EF 100mm f2.8 will be on my wish list to add to my Digital
Rebel/300D. Hope something I offered proves helpful.

Respectfully, DHB

Joseph Meehan wrote:

WhaleShark wrote:
For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.


A true macro lens is better. It is also more expensive. Close up
lenses are a lot cheaper and work, but not as well.

The question really is "Which is best for you." Only you can answer
that. If good quality results and some slight inconvenience is good
enough
for you, than go for the close up lenses. Make sure they will get you
close
enough. Note that most information available on how close they will allow
you to focus is based on 35 mm and the lens factor (like 1.5) for your
camera will also apply to those numbers.

If you want the very best results, with the ability to focus on
something the same size as your sensor and money is not the controlling
factor, then a true macro is your answer.

Thank you Joseph, at last I understand what dpFWIW was trying to tell
me. (I'm a bit dense sometimes) I guess the filters will work fine for
my application.

Thanks again!

--

QUIPd 1.02: (445 of 679)
- If you want to feel rich, just count all of the things you have
- that money can't buy.--Anonymous

My photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/sny

DHB wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:48:18 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:45:57 +0200, WhaleShark
wrote:

For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

As has been already said several times the macro is better, but there
is an inexpensive alternative for cameras with interchangeable lenses
although it only works *close* and that is a "reverse adapter". it is
nothing more than an adapter ring that has the proper camera mount on
one side and threads for the filter ring on the other. They work
quite well for very close work. OTOH they are strictly manual, or I
should say I've never seen one that wasn't manual only. I don't see
how they'd be able to do the linking.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.


The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.

A reverse mounted lens does work very well but as pointed out,
you must get "VERY" close & depth of field is very narrow. I have
used this method with my Canon A70 with both it's focus manually set
to infinity & likewise for the reversed EF 50mm f1.8 II lens that I
used. Focus then becomes a function of moving a tiny bit closer or
further from your subject. Even with both lens set to infinity, a
manually selected smallest aperture (f8), the A70 set to full
telephoto (max. zoom), you still have to hold very steady (tripod if
possible) & have very good lighting.

Because you must get so close, the camera/lenses/you can block
the lighting so having a small reflector or 2 to redirect sunlight on
your target helps a lot (I use a piece of a silver car window sun
shield as a cheap homemade reflector). If you have lot's of patients,
this method can yield incredible results at very reasonable expense,
however if you don't have lots of patience, you will very quickly give
up on this approach. I'm strongly considering building some type of
fine focus rail to mount the camera & lenses on so I can mount it all
on a tripod & focus by moving everything in/our with close precision
via the focusing rail adjustment.

Macro is a whole new world, I have a few pictures of tiny ants
that came to collect a little bit of sugar I placed outside. They
look like giant ants climbing a mound of raw uncut diamonds, which was
the tiny sugar granules.

A quality Macro lens like Canon's EF 100mm f2.8, if you have a
compatible camera is worth the investment "if" Macro is more than just
a curiosity. For me, I am not yet done exploring with what I have but
if I chosse to continue in macro photography on a regular basis, a
Canon Macro EF 100mm f2.8 will be on my wish list to add to my Digital
Rebel/300D. Hope something I offered proves helpful.

Respectfully, DHB


Very useful, thank you. You have given me some ideas to try too!

(I like the rails idea.)

--

QUIPd 1.02: (197 of 679)
- If You Can't Learn To Do Something Well, Learn to Enjoy Doing It
- Poorly.

My photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/sny

DHB wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:48:18 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:45:57 +0200, WhaleShark
wrote:

For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

As has been already said several times the macro is better, but there
is an inexpensive alternative for cameras with interchangeable lenses
although it only works *close* and that is a "reverse adapter". it is
nothing more than an adapter ring that has the proper camera mount on
one side and threads for the filter ring on the other. They work
quite well for very close work. OTOH they are strictly manual, or I
should say I've never seen one that wasn't manual only. I don't see
how they'd be able to do the linking.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.


The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.

A reverse mounted lens does work very well but as pointed out,
you must get "VERY" close & depth of field is very narrow. I have
used this method with my Canon A70 with both it's focus manually set
to infinity & likewise for the reversed EF 50mm f1.8 II lens that I
used. Focus then becomes a function of moving a tiny bit closer or
further from your subject. Even with both lens set to infinity, a
manually selected smallest aperture (f8), the A70 set to full
telephoto (max. zoom), you still have to hold very steady (tripod if
possible) & have very good lighting.

Because you must get so close, the camera/lenses/you can block
the lighting so having a small reflector or 2 to redirect sunlight on
your target helps a lot (I use a piece of a silver car window sun
shield as a cheap homemade reflector). If you have lot's of patients,
this method can yield incredible results at very reasonable expense,
however if you don't have lots of patience, you will very quickly give
up on this approach. I'm strongly considering building some type of
fine focus rail to mount the camera & lenses on so I can mount it all
on a tripod & focus by moving everything in/our with close precision
via the focusing rail adjustment.

Macro is a whole new world, I have a few pictures of tiny ants
that came to collect a little bit of sugar I placed outside. They
look like giant ants climbing a mound of raw uncut diamonds, which was
the tiny sugar granules.

A quality Macro lens like Canon's EF 100mm f2.8, if you have a
compatible camera is worth the investment "if" Macro is more than just
a curiosity. For me, I am not yet done exploring with what I have but
if I chosse to continue in macro photography on a regular basis, a
Canon Macro EF 100mm f2.8 will be on my wish list to add to my Digital
Rebel/300D. Hope something I offered proves helpful.

Respectfully, DHB


Very useful, thank you. You have given me some ideas to try too!

(I like the rails idea.)

--

QUIPd 1.02: (197 of 679)
- If You Can't Learn To Do Something Well, Learn to Enjoy Doing It
- Poorly.

My photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/sny

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:19:28 GMT, DHB wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:48:18 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:45:57 +0200, WhaleShark
wrote:

For an amateur hobbyist wanting to shoot insects, which is better,
close up filters or macro lens? (Bearing in mind that the macro lens
is more than double the price of the filters.

As has been already said several times the macro is better, but there
is an inexpensive alternative for cameras with interchangeable lenses
although it only works *close* and that is a "reverse adapter". it is
nothing more than an adapter ring that has the proper camera mount on
one side and threads for the filter ring on the other. They work
quite well for very close work. OTOH they are strictly manual, or I
should say I've never seen one that wasn't manual only. I don't see
how they'd be able to do the linking.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.


The only ones available to me are these:

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/cu.htm

and

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/200252w.htm

for a wide angle lens containing a macro lens.

Your help will be appreciated!

PS: These will be used with a Canon A70 and DC52C adapter ring.

A reverse mounted lens does work very well but as pointed out,
you must get "VERY" close & depth of field is very narrow. I have
used this method with my Canon A70 with both it's focus manually set
to infinity & likewise for the reversed EF 50mm f1.8 II lens that I
used. Focus then becomes a function of moving a tiny bit closer or
further from your subject. Even with both lens set to infinity, a
manually selected smallest aperture (f8), the A70 set to full
telephoto (max. zoom), you still have to hold very steady (tripod if
possible) & have very good lighting.

Because you must get so close, the camera/lenses/you can block
the lighting so having a small reflector or 2 to redirect sunlight on
your target helps a lot (I use a piece of a silver car window sun
shield as a cheap homemade reflector). If you have lot's of patients,

A _whole_lot :-))

this method can yield incredible results at very reasonable expense,
however if you don't have lots of patience, you will very quickly give
up on this approach. I'm strongly considering building some type of

It can be frustrating/exasperating/

fine focus rail to mount the camera & lenses on so I can mount it all
on a tripod & focus by moving everything in/our with close precision
via the focusing rail adjustment.

Which reminds me, there is also the bellows extension for cameras
using interchangeable lenses. It's more expensive than the reverse
adapter, but more versatile. OTOH it can be as exasperating as the
reverse adapter. Maybe more so as the exposure changes with the amount
of extension. Again, depth of field is shallow

To me, both are tripod and cable release configurations. Then again,
I don't use the tripod as often as I should with regular photography.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Macro is a whole new world, I have a few pictures of tiny ants
that came to collect a little bit of sugar I placed outside. They
look like giant ants climbing a mound of raw uncut diamonds, which was
the tiny sugar granules.

A quality Macro lens like Canon's EF 100mm f2.8, if you have a
compatible camera is worth the investment "if" Macro is more than just
a curiosity. For me, I am not yet done exploring with what I have but
if I chosse to continue in macro photography on a regular basis, a
Canon Macro EF 100mm f2.8 will be on my wish list to add to my Digital
Rebel/300D. Hope something I offered proves helpful.

Respectfully, DHB