The Planted Tank Forum - Reply to Topic
Planted Tank Forums
Your Tanks Image Hosting *Tank Tracker * Plant Profiles Fish Profiles Planted Tank Guide Photo Gallery Articles

Go Back   The Planted Tank Forum > General Planted Tank Forums > Photography > Tell me about diopters aka close-up filters

Thread: Tell me about diopters aka close-up filters Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
11-13-2012 06:03 AM
etane Well, I actually did end up getting a diopter. Although I can auto focus from within 4" from the subject, the images captured at that distance all came out blurry for some reasons. I guess this is what is called narrow depth of field? But, at about 8" from the subject, I could get some OK shots. The macro is quite as "macro", but is doable for me. Here's a few samples.




No flash on the first shot and built in flash on the second shot. Still difficult to get a good shot as lighting is still a challenge since I am not using an off body flash. So, I can't capture any fish as they are always moving, and I can't speed up the shutter speed as the pic will under expose.

The diopter I got is a B+W 77mm +5.

BTW, these are Nick's famous shrimps.
11-08-2012 11:31 PM
etane Just reporting back about the Kiron lens. Well, so I learned that I shouldn't get a macro lens with a wide angle. I thought I could be within a foot of the subject with any macro lens, but, with this one, I could do that only when in wide angle. Once in tele, I have to move farther away. The lens itself is a keeper for casual photos as I do not have a tele lens. 99.9% of the time, the 17-55mm suits me fine.
11-02-2012 02:21 AM
GraphicGr8s Nubster, they don't. Neither do focusing bellows or deglassed teleconverters. I'll give TME the benefit of the doubt.
11-02-2012 01:30 AM
speedie408 I use tubes all the time.

Quality seems fine.
11-02-2012 01:22 AM
Nubster
Quote:
Originally Posted by TickleMyElmo View Post
The only thing you can get cheap is an extension tube or reversing ring. Both offer terrible quality.
Orly?

This shot was taken with a reversing ring and a pretty shoddy setup overall...

(not mine)...



How do tubes produce terrible quality when all they are is a hollow tube?
10-30-2012 06:59 PM
etane Quick update:

I won a bid on fleabay for a Kiron 28-105mm f3.2-4.5. Will report back after I receive it. Got it for dirt cheap, $11 plus ship. Reviews for this lens is great. Kiron is the OEM for Nikon E-series lens.

If this one doesn't work out, I think I will get a Rokinon 85mm f1.4. Reviews are awesome and can use it for night photography with the f1.8. Not sure how well it handles night photography in the sense that this is a manual focus only lens. Plus, I'd prefer to have a zoom for indoor shooting since space to move around is more limited.
10-27-2012 08:04 PM
Nubster You can get a Tamron 90mm macro for $300ish and they are pretty well regarded. That's what I use and its a really good lens.
10-27-2012 08:51 AM
TickleMyElmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by etane View Post
Ultimately, with close focus distance being equal, what makes the reproduction ratio get closer to 1:1? Is it how much/far it can telephoto?
No, it depends on the design of the lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by etane View Post
So, I think I solved my original question and a diopter is not what I am looking for. What I want is something that extends the zoom range on my 17-55mm lens, and that something is a teleconverter. Now, I know what you guys are thinking that this is probably an even worse option than a diopter or extension tube. But, functionally, it's what I was looking for instead of a diopter.
No, a teleconverter won't help you. It doesn't mount on some lenses (usually mostly only mounts on super telephotos). They can be mounted on certain macro lenses to increase the reproduction ratio, but then working distance is greatly reduced.

The only thing you can get cheap is an extension tube or reversing ring. Both offer terrible quality. Photography is very much an expensive hobby, there is no cheap method that offers great results :/
10-27-2012 07:14 AM
etane So, I think I solved my original question and a diopter is not what I am looking for. What I want is something that extends the zoom range on my 17-55mm lens, and that something is a teleconverter. Now, I know what you guys are thinking that this is probably an even worse option than a diopter or extension tube. But, functionally, it's what I was looking for instead of a diopter.
10-27-2012 04:56 AM
etane
Quote:
Originally Posted by TickleMyElmo View Post
You're kinda looking at the wrong thing, its close focus AND reproduction ratio that you should be looking at. Reproduction ratio being the biggest issue.

The 17-55 has a 1:5 reproduction ratio. The lower the second number (or the closer the second number is to 1), the bigger the subject will appear.

For example, a lens with a close focus of 2.25' but a reproduction ratio of 1:2 will magnify the subject/make the subject appear larger than a lens with a 1.25' close focus but a reproduction ratio of 1:5....

Get it?
Ultimately, with close focus distance being equal, what makes the reproduction ratio get closer to 1:1? Is it how much/far it can telephoto?
10-27-2012 04:53 AM
etane
Quote:
Originally Posted by kubalik View Post
the older version of this lens, used, on ebay goes for $350-400, its smaller and lighter because it doesn't have the VR.
Not decided which direction I want to go with yet, I did do a soft bid on [Ebay Link Removed] earlier today. No surprise I didn't win it though.
10-27-2012 04:48 AM
TickleMyElmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by etane View Post
Currently, I'd say I can get to within 2' of the subject. Ken Rockwell claims 1.25'.

I don't necessarily want to get up any closer to the subject. I don't mind sitting about 3-4' away from the subject. But, I want to be able to telephoto closer to the subject.
You're kinda looking at the wrong thing, its close focus AND reproduction ratio that you should be looking at. Reproduction ratio being the biggest issue.

The 17-55 has a 1:5 reproduction ratio. The lower the second number (or the closer the second number is to 1), the bigger the subject will appear.

For example, a lens with a close focus of 2.25' but a reproduction ratio of 1:2 will magnify the subject/make the subject appear larger than a lens with a 1.25' close focus but a reproduction ratio of 1:5....

Get it?
10-27-2012 02:13 AM
kubalik
Quote:
Originally Posted by etane View Post
No argument that a macro lens with telephoto such as the 105mm f2.8 maco would be ideal. That lens is $900 on amazon
the older version of this lens, used, on ebay goes for $350-400, its smaller and lighter because it doesn't have the VR.
10-27-2012 01:44 AM
dmagerl I have a 100mm macro lens. I use it everywhere. You can just think of it as a 100mm lens that happens to close focus.
10-27-2012 01:06 AM
etane
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmagerl View Post
All I can say is every time you use a diopter or extension tube you'll be kicking yourself for not buying a macro lens.

Anything you stick on the lens is going to cut the light through the lens. When doing close in shooting, even at 2 ft, depth of field is everything and that means light, lots of it. So anything that slows down a lens is anathema to getting maximum light through the lens.
That is true. I understand that logic. I don't know how technology has advanced in terms of diopter technology though. Are the modern "expensive" ones capable of passing light through as well as plain UV filters. The reviews for the Canon 500D on amazon are quite good.

And, speaking of kicking myself, I've learned that when entering a hobby to not buy the beginner set as I will outgrow it quickly. So, part of me wants to overkill on the lens, so I never want to upgrade again. I am just questioning how often will I use a macro lens because if I get one then it will be used only for the tank.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Planted Tank LLC 2012