Extension tube or close-up lens?

[01af]

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

[Dr. Harout]

Excellent, Olaf.
Totally agree.

[Dusty]

Yep, extension tubes are a quick and dirty trick to avoid the cost of properly designed optics. They often give good results, and when you compare costs against good macro lenses, you have to justify the optical expense.

Good close up optical lenses, the screw-on type you tested, are the compromise. They can add flare and unwanted reflections in the right light, and it's really impossible to add to the front of a lens and get anywhere near the quality of a good macro, but again, it's a cost thing.

Going thru my MD mount stuff the other day, I found my old reverse ring. Another cheap way to get macro shots. They worked by screwing unto the front or the lens, and allowing you to reverse mount the lens for close up shots. I remember this as better quality than my add-on lenses, but with very short focusing ability.

Dusty

[01af]

Good close up optical lenses, the screw-on type you tested, are the compromise. They can add flare and unwanted reflections in the right light, and it's really impossible to add to the front of a lens and get anywhere near the quality of a good macro ...

Obviously you didn't understand anything, did you?

-- Olaf

[Dusty]

Obviously you didn't understand anything, did you?

-- Olaf

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.

I was remarking on a broader theme of true macro lenses vs extension tubes vs screw-on close up lenses.

Dusty

[Alain]

Hi

And what solution to get higher that 1x with a macro lens (90mm Tamron)?

Alain

[01af]

As tested, you got better results with the close up lenses. This may not be true in all situations.

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).

Close-up lenses work well at magnifications of 1:10 to 1:2 on wide-angle, standard, and short telephoto lenses. In this range, close-up lenses will deliver results that are virtually as good as those from macro lenses. At larger magnifications, close-up lenses' performance will start to suffer but then non-macro lenses on extension tubes will be even worse.

Extension tubes work well with medium and long telephoto lenses at moderate magnifications ... and, of course, with lenses which are designed to be used on extension tubes or bellows units.

And what solution to get higher than 1× with a macro lens (90 mm Tamron)?

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×.

-- Olaf

[alissond]

Hello!

Well, I've been thinking of buying those "close-up filters" on ebay. I agree it's a cost thing.

I just wanna ask a few things here:

1: I'm seeing filters sold as a set; +1,+2,+4,+8,+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?

2: Some items for sale has a "Green L" on the description. Can someone explain that please?

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?

Here are the items i'm looking at:

--A single filter +10:
http://cgi.ebay.ph/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie ... :IT&ih=001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

--A set of four +1,+2,+4,+10:
http://cgi.ebay.ph/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie ... :IT&ih=002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will greatly appreciate any help.

Thanks!!

[David Kilpatrick]

Just a technical point, none of these two-element close up lenses are 'APO' they are all achromats, Sigma's occasional use of APO to describe accessory c-u lenses for their APO teles may confuse. A cemented doublet can not be an apochromat even with the latest glass types, or we would be seeing some amazingly light small lenses!

All Minolta branded close-up lenses from the late 1960s onwards are two-element achromats as well, so if you can find any Minolta c-u, it will generally perform well. But some early ones are either uncoated, or only single coated. If you can find a later Minolta close-up lens labelled as AC (Achromatic Coating, nothing to do with achromatic construction) then it is multicoated and will offer the best overall performance. The Minolta lenses are relatively weak in power and for serious extra close-up pulling, a No 3 is the best to get.

David

[01af]

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?

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.

Stacking does affect image quality indeed, and not for the better. With high-quality close-up lenses however, performance loss will be neglectible when stacking two. Stacking three or more should be avoided. Always attach the weaker close-up lens directly to the master lens, then the stronger close-up lens on top of that.

2: Some items for sale has a "Green L" on the description. Can someone explain that please?

No.

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?

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.

Very strong close-up lenses, such as +10 dpt, usually give very poor image quality and should be avoided. A set of +1, +2, and +4 dpt makes good sense for most kinds of close-up work. If you find yourself needing the strength of +10 dpt on a regular basis then it's time to leave close-up lenses behind and get a real macro lens.

Here are the items I'm looking at:
--A single filter +10: [...]
--A set of four +1, +2, +4, +10: [...]

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.

The Minolta lenses are relatively weak in power and for serious extra close-up pulling, a No 3 is the best to get.

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.

Canon offers two achromatic close-up lenses, called 500D (+2 dpt) and 250D (+4 dpt), in a fairly wide range of screw-in sizes up to 77 mm.

Nikon offers (or used to offer) two achromatic close-up lenses also, in strengths of +1.5 dpt and +2.9 dpt, in two screw-in sizes (52 mm and 62 mm).

-- Olaf

[David Kilpatrick]

You are right there Olaf, No 0 1 and 2. Having been brought up originally on the old BDB c-u lenses I have always thought of them as 1, 2 and 3 but with rather odd variations in strength.

David

[aster]

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

Olaf, thank you for this intriguing study.

I always enjoy your contributions which come with your very own qualities and style that always are to the point only.

I'll shoot some samples to mimick this little study to see what more I can achieve with the close-up lenses that I have in a box that's mostly untouched because I use the Tamron 90mm more.

Hope to see more of your studies... They are always welcome!

Yildiz

[01af]

... No 0 1 and 2. [...] I have always thought of them as 1, 2 and 3 but with rather odd variations in strength.

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.

When the set of close-up lenses originally was released, the Minolta standard lenses were the MC Rokkor-PF 55 mm 1:1.7 with a minimum focusing distance of 0.5 m and the MC Rokkor-PF 58 mm 1:1.4 with a minimum focusing distance of 0.6 m. A +2 dpt close-up lens' working range starts where the standard lens, focused to the minimum, ends. And then the +3.8 dpt starts where the standard lens, focused to the minimum and equipped with a +2 dpt close-up lens, ends. And finally the same applies to the stack of No. 1 and No. 2. So the two close-up lenses provide a continuous working range from infinity up to almost 1:2 (with slight overlaps with the 55/1.7); there would have been a gaps between the ranges if the No. 2 was +4 dpt (in particular with the 58/1.4).

And the Close-up Lens No. 0 originally was intended for use with the MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2.5, with a minimum focusing distance of 1 m. With a +1 dpt close-up lens there would be a minor gap between the working ranges with and without close-up lens, so the No. 0 was given a slightly reduced strength of +0.94 dpt, again to provide a continuous working range without any gaps.

-- Olaf

[alissond]

Hi everyone! Thanks for your replies!

Well, I'm a bit interested in doing some macro type shots, so I guess I could say it's only a try-out thing.

To 01af:
Thanks for correcting me there. I did some reading yesterday and have already corrected myself a couple of times. And yes, diopters they are. But it's always worth reiterating something.

To Sonolta:
Your suggestions I think are always good. But I dont have much to spend. I've already read somethings about the nikons. I tried a search for the minolta's, but cant seem to find something on ebay.
If it would cost me $200 to get a good set of c-u's, I'd probably rather add some more and get a dedicated flash unit.

You said something about Hoya's? How about this?

http://cgi.ebay.ph/NEW-Hoya-62mm-Close- ... .m63.l1177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For the moment, I'll read on the things you've posted. I might be skipping something.

To everyone:

So I think I'm better off with a set of maybe +1+2+4?

Also, I just have the 18200 lens and it has a 62mm thread.

Thanks again!

[alissond]

Al right!!

Many Thanks!