Comparing Macro Techniques - Lens, Filter, and Extension Tube
These comparison images were taken at 1:1 with the Canon EF 2.8f USM Macro lens
Equipment used:
I don't have a wide angle lens in order to compare the reversal technique.
The 10 Cent coin below is 17.77 mm in diameter.
At 1:1, the distance from the lens to the subject is about 0.3m or 1.02ft
Lens alone, the closest that you can get from about 1ft away at the closest.
Lens + Raynox Filter. Using this filter means you need to go in a bit closer, a few inches away from the subject.
Lens + Filter + Fotodiex extension tube. Was taken about 1 or 2 inchs away from the subject.
It was very difficult to get a good focus handheld, plus the lens is now quite heavy with everything on it.
Lens alone
Lens + Raynox Filter
Lens + Extension Tube
Lens + Extension Tube + Raynox Filter
In general I prefer to use the Lens + Raynox filter. The extension tube is a bit clunky, makes the lens really long and heavy, and removes the ability to control aperture.
I haven't found a real need for the extension tube, since the filter gets in closer and is much easier to use (plus you can control the aperture with the filter). The tube + filter seems like overkill, unless I'm trying to take a photo of something extremely tiny and then I'd definitely need a tripod and more light, and more patience :)
Any questions or suggestions?
Nice!
I remember that I tried to hold my lens backwards to the camera body. A friend showed me that I can get some pretty close macros. Today I know I want try it again. My lens and sensor are grateful
Yes that's a lens reverse, and you can get an extension to connect the body to the reversed lens instead of buying a macro lens.
Didn't know that! Thanks
The Raynox filter is pretty impressive for the price.
Very. If you focus to infinity with the filter on, you can focus from about a foot away and you'll get a magnification about equivalent to the lens alone at 1:1.
Hey Jam, This is cool. I know you get a lot of great use out of your raynox. You probably already know this but there is another one that you can stack on top of the 250. It's the raynox 150. Having those stacked will really bring you closer. You'll need a lot more light as you will have to step down your aperture to the max like f18 to f22 or else your depth of field will be razor thin. It is really tough to hand hold focus with both together but it gives you some added versatility. To stack them you just need a step down ring from 49mm-43mm which is only like $10. I have both and use different combinations depending on the situation. You can also use them with extension tubes too! Even closer. Cheers.
Ah I did not consider putting the other one on the end. Hmm!!
Do you have any examples with just the filter and then same subject with both filters?
Yeh, I think you would like it. I can take a look for a comparison. I might not have one because, I don't keep track of what I do most times. I just start shooting and don't really think about what I am doing. I can probably make a quick comparison for you. Anyways, the lens isn't much additional, I know it was about the same price as the 250. If you wanna go really insane, they have one called the MSN-202. You can't stack that one, yet it goes really close. It is used mostly for scientific purposes but can be used for abstract art if you wanted to go in that direction. I am thinking about picking up one of those but heh... we'll see. Raynox is made in Japan and I have been very happy with the quality. Later dude.
I'm a bit obsessed about getting as close as I can, so I'll check it out.
Meanwhile I'm also looking at a x-600mm zoom :O !!
Sheeit homie. That would be nuts with a raynox on top. Hey, check this site out. It's one of my favorite tutorial sites for macro. It's where I learned about the raynox adapters. http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/
I can't believe how close you got to see all the detail of the scratches and wear.