No, obviously you didn't test then in all conditions. As tested, you got better results with the close up lenses. This may not be true in all situations.01af wrote: Obviously you didn't understand anything, did you?
-- Olaf
It is not true in some situations indeed. But it's true in most situations ... and at the bottom of that page I did elaborate when extension tubes work well (read: work better than close-up lenses).Dusty wrote:As tested, you got better results with the close up lenses. This may not be true in all situations.
There is no good solution to go beyond 1:1 (1×) with telephoto macro lenses. At magnifications greater than 1×, a long focal length will eat extension length but won't extend working distance. When simply putting the fully extended macro lens on additional extension tubes then image quality will deteriorate as quickly as it does with non-macro lenses on the same tube. For pictoral work however, quality can be good enough still. Close-up lenses on fully extended macro lenses won't add much magnification (except when very strong---but then quality will suffer severely). Here, enlarger lenses, reversed standard lenses, a reversed 50 mm macro lens, or reversed moderate wide-angle lenses on extension tubes or bellows units are the best solution short of special macrophoto or microphoto lens heads dedicated for that range of magnifications (such as Zeiss Luminar, Leica Photar, or Minolta Bellows Micro lenses). The focal lengths of those lens heads are between 12.5 mm and 60 mm. The shorter the lens' focal length, the higher the magnification will be. By the way, lens heads longer than 60 mm also exist but those are meant for magnifications smaller than 1×.Alain wrote:And what solution to get higher than 1× with a macro lens (90 mm Tamron)?
These things are no filters but close-up lenses. Yes---purchasing a set usually does make sense because a single close-up lens will provide a rather narrow working range. And then, generally you'll need weaker close-up lenses, like +1 .. +2 dpt (diopters) for telephoto lenses and stronger ones, like +2 .. +4 dpt, for standard and wide-angle lenses. The shorter the master lens, the stronger the close-up lens must be.alissond wrote:1: I'm seeing filters sold as a set; +1, +2, +4, +10; and others are sold only as a single filter. Would I be better off buying a single filter? Or if I buy a set, would stacking them up affect image quality?
No.alissond wrote:2: Some items for sale has a "Green L" on the description. Can someone explain that please?
Close-up lenses don't have "magnification;" instead, they have strength. +0.5 dpt or +1 dpt are weak; +2 dpt or +3 dpt are medium-strength; +4, +5, or +6 dpt are strong; anything beyond that is very strong. As a general rule, weaker close-up lenses give less magnification at better image quality. Stronger close-up lenses give more magnification but also degrade image quality more. The actual magnification (and degradation of image quality) depends not only on the close-up lens' strength but also on the master lens' focal length. The longer the focal length of the master lens, the higher the magnification of the same close-up lens will be. So a +1 dpt close-up lens on a telephoto master lens may yield a higher magnification than e. g. a +3 dpt close-up lens on a wide-angle master lens.alissond wrote:3: Any suggestions on the magnification? If I'm better off with a single filter, +4, +8, +10, which of these may give good image quality?
Both offers are cheap low-end stuff. I wouldn't waste any money on those. On the other hand---they're cheap enough for a try-out ... but don't expect too much.alissond wrote:Here are the items I'm looking at:
--A single filter +10: [...]
--A set of four +1, +2, +4, +10: [...]
A No. 3 doesn't exist. Originally, the Minolta Close-up Lenses was a set of two, No. 1 (+2 dpt) and No. 2 (+3.8 dpt), intended for use on standard lenses. Stacking them will yield +5.8 dpt (simply add the strengths: 2.0 dpt + 3.8 dpt = 5.8 dpt). Later, a third one was added to the family, No. 0 (+0.94 dpt), intended for use on short telephoto lenses. No. 2 or No.1 + No. 2 stacked will give very good results on master lenses of 50 mm or thereabouts of focal length. For telephoto lenses between, say, 85 mm and 135 mm, Nos. 0 and 1 are recommended. They came in screw-in sizes of 49 mm and 55 mm (the earliest Nos. 1 and 2 also in 52 mm). Minolta also used to offer achromatic close-up lenses for their range of Autopak Super-8 movie cameras in 67 mm size in various strengths. And finally there was a very fine +0.37 dpt achromatic close-up lens in 72 mm size for use with the Zoom Rokkor 100-500 mm lens; this one is sought-after until today because it's extremely useful for medium and long telephoto lenses.David Kilpatrick wrote:The Minolta lenses are relatively weak in power and for serious extra close-up pulling, a No 3 is the best to get.
01af wrote:Whenever the discussion comes to macro photography and macro equipment, more often than not this question will arise: What's better---extension tubes or close-up lenses? And then, inevitably somebody will bring the ineradicable myth that extension tubes cannot affect image quality because they contain no glass. I just have prepared a little web page to show how bad extension tubes actually are in comparison to both close-up lenses and a real macro lens.
So whenever you encounter someone spreading the 'no glass' myth, you now know where to point them to:
http://www.ulrix.de/misc/closeup/en/closeup.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-- Olaf
They are always welcome!The three classic Minolta Close-up Lenses may have odd strengths (+0.94 dpt, +2 dpt, and +3.8 dpt rather than the usual +1, +2, +4 dpt series) ... but there's a reason to it.David Kilpatrick wrote:... No 0 1 and 2. [...] I have always thought of them as 1, 2 and 3 but with rather odd variations in strength.
.)Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests
