Question - Close up filter/diopter (500d) for cannon 70-300m is af lens

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Ken Ellis, Mar 21, 2005.

  1. Ken Ellis

    Ken Ellis Guest

    Any good or bad experience with these. Curious if worth the
    investment.

    rgds
    Ken
     
    Ken Ellis, Mar 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ken Ellis

    paul Guest


    I just got one & I'm happy with it though I'm not qualified to judge. I
    put it on a Nikon 70-200 with 2x teleconverter (400mm) & the closest
    distance goes from about 5 feet to about a foot. A quarter dollar coin
    is cropped top & bottom & just fits side to side.


    People scoff at this because they are used to the cheaper versions but
    this thing is one heavy hunk of glass. From what I read, it is equal
    quality to a true macro lens, just that you lack the ability to focus to
    infinity. It was suggested this probably does not have 'flat' focus like
    a real macro so not as good for copy work where you need the edges of a
    flat subject in focus.

    Here's some reading:
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0005yN
     
    paul, Mar 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ken Ellis

    Bob Niland Guest

    In that case a copy stand or tripod is likely in use, so
    you can afford whatever exposure time is necessary to
    support an aperture with enough depth of field to compensate.

    I do wonder if the mass of the 250D or 500D can overwhelm the
    focusing motor/algorithm of low end Canon lenses, particularly
    the 18-55 MM zoom kitted on the 300/350D cameras.
     
    Bob Niland, Mar 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Ken Ellis

    paul Guest


    Maxed out with the Nikon AF-S at 200 + 2x (400mm) the autofocus is
    pretty much incapacitated but it works fine at more reasonable
    distances. I just did some tests with this setup:

    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/macro-test>

    Maybe someone who knows more about macro work can decipher the results &
    critique the settings I chose. The last frame has some more detailed
    discussion. Basically it looks pretty bad when maxed out but I don't
    know, I didn't really plan to get microscopic views of insect eyes
    anyways, just reasonable hand held vibration reduced closeups more like
    the first frame.
     
    paul, Mar 21, 2005
    #4
  5. Ken Ellis

    Ken Ellis Guest

    Thanks for the info. I'm considering a canon 500d close-up for my
    telephoto. I talked with a guy at a local store and he said the same
    about the lens perifery regarding focus...I should find some-one that
    has them and take a shot or two. So..you use yours with a 2x teleconv
    also. Well...that's another twist. How fast is that lens? I would be
    apprehensive about a 2x on mine....would get a 1.4 I suppose.
    At that point i can get the 100mm canon macro. $$$. LOL
    No free lunch.

    rgds

    Ken
     
    Ken Ellis, Mar 21, 2005
    #5
  6. Ken Ellis

    paul Guest


    OK I did some more shots and I'm getting really good results! I'm happy
    with it anyways. I have no problem recommending this setup. Half of
    these were done with the 2x extender at 400mm & half at 200mm with a bit
    more DOF f/18 or f/22. All worked fine at the same manual setting of
    1/60 sec. Most took a couple tries to get steady. I think the tripod is
    more subject to mirror flap shake than hand held. I did have the VR
    turned on & things were waving back & forth not at all steady though the
    weight of the lens reduced any small jitters.

    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.ph...n-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-03-21-macro>
     
    paul, Mar 21, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.