 Michelle Lea Guinn |
close-up filters vs macro lens I was just wondering what you all thought of close-up filters vs. a macro lens. I have a 28-200mm Sigma and I'm debating if I should just get the close-up filters (to save money for now) or go for it and get a macro lens. I have the Pentax *ist DS. And was thinking of getting the Sigma 105mm macro lens. Please let me know what you think, Thanks. mlg
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Hi Michelle - My limited experience with close up filters told me that I was much better off with a macro lens. It seemed to me that the filters caused a loss of sharpness when focusing close onto my subject. I have a 105mm lens - a Minolta - and love it for close ups. I also have a set of extension tubes for when I really want to come in closely. I have not noticed any loss of sharpness with the tubes. Hope this helps. Irene
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
A well-made, name-brand macro lens will out perform close up filters. It's also more versatile,...in that you can focus from the closest allowable distance all the way to infinity. Tubes are a better alternative than filters since they are hollow and won't compromise the sharpness and clarity of your lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
A set of close-up filters is going to run you probably $40-60. A nice set of your-brand name extension tubes might run you $200-400. A nice your-brand name true macro may cost you $500-whatever amount of dollars. Plus a life size converter is going to run another $150-200. A basic concept in photography that I use (but not always absolute) is that you get what you pay for. Yeah close-up filters nice at $50 compared to $800 but you will obviously lose quality, especially when you stack the 4,2,1 all together. My recommendation is that if you're going to go absolutely nuts with macro, save up for the true lens. If you're going to do macro a decent amount, maybe try tubes. If you want to test to see if you even like macro maybe try the filters. I have the filters and pretty much hate them due to loss of sharpness. Good luck. .justin.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Justin and Michelle – Justin, I think that your figures might be a little high – although, I am sure a lot depends upon both where your purchase your equipment and what brand of equipment you use. My Minolta 105mm lens cost me a little over $300 about 2 years ago (of-course the price may have gone up) and a set of Kenko extension tubes cost me about $130 last year. All items were purchased at B&H Photo via the Internet. At any rate, I think that Justin really captured the heart of the matter very well. Yes, you can probably use close-up filters and get acceptable results. However, if your goal is to produce WOW macro images you really need a decent lens and, perhaps, a set of extension tubes. I shot without extension tubes for a long time, but finally got them when I started expanding my macro work.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
There are 2 ranges of close-up filters. The ~$30 lenses have a single element and are not well corrected for chromatic aberrations - different color wavelengths will focus to different depths. These might be satisfying for casual use, but will not give sharp results. At about 3-4x times that cost are double-element achromat close-up lenses, like Canon's 250D and 500D, or Hoya's Close Up Macro Multicoated. These will give much better results, but then the limitation will be the base lens with which they're used. Similar to using extension tubes.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Lea Guinn |
Thank you all for your wonderful responses and information. I have thought about it and I'm going to get the macro lens. I am using a close up filter +2 that I bought a while back, even though it has been givin me some creative shots, it's not what I'm looking for in a macro shot. Thanks again for your help and info!!! mlg
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||