Reading mode: Light Dark

Close-up 'lenses' -- yeah, cheap, but.......

Go to last post
M

MikeA

Senior Member
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
0
Location
Left coast, US
I put 'lenses' in quote because although technically speaking they are lenses after a fashion, they're really just filters. I'm referring to Hoya and other screw-in filters that provide close-in capability. These are handy, all right. But I continue to run into a problem I ran into long ago with film cameras: these filters, useful though they might be, nearly always produce color "fringing" -- chromatic aberration.

Photoshop's "replace color" command can be effective in reducing or even eliminating this problem in some images. But just now I have a shot in which dropping the saturation of the "fringing" caused by the inexpensive Hoya close-up filter will effectively ruin the shot -- the same color appears in other portions of the image and removing it would be a disaster. Getting rid of the "fringing" problem is going to require a much different -- and probably very time-consuming -- approach in this case.

This tells me to start using the Hoya filters as small paperweights from now on -- and find a decent macro attachment for the C2100. As I recall, Olympus does make such a thing -- a 4-element close-up attachment. It's probably kind of pricey, but if it will help me to avoid this problem, it'll be worth it. My advice at this point: if you want to get close, close, closer, consider one of those close-up attachments -- rather than the inexpensive filters.

One participant here has been heard to say several times that you "won't notice much of a difference" if you use the inexpensive filters. Well, maybe you won't all the time. And then again, you'll eventually encounter the situation I have just encountered -- and like me you'll wish you'd-a spent the additional money. It is, after all, a get-what-you-pay-for sort of world...
 
Real Macro-photography is very expensive. A close-up lense set gets you close to the object and close to macro-photography but not very close. One gets what one pays for. I am doubtful that any add on lenses will be much of an improvement over good close-up lenses. I am glad that the UZi does macro as well as it does and for those shots where the frame does not fill with the object, I'll use the close-ups.
Of course, if money were no object..... :-)
MikeA said:
I put 'lenses' in quote because although technically speaking they
are lenses after a fashion, they're really just filters. I'm
referring to Hoya and other screw-in filters that provide close-in
capability. These are handy, all right. But I continue to run into
a problem I ran into long ago with film cameras: these filters,
useful though they might be, nearly always produce color "fringing"
-- chromatic aberration.

Photoshop's "replace color" command can be effective in reducing or
even eliminating this problem in some images. But just now I have a
shot in which dropping the saturation of the "fringing" caused by
the inexpensive Hoya close-up filter will effectively ruin the shot
-- the same color appears in other portions of the image and
removing it would be a disaster. Getting rid of the "fringing"
problem is going to require a much different -- and probably very
time-consuming -- approach in this case.

This tells me to start using the Hoya filters as small paperweights
from now on -- and find a decent macro attachment for the C2100. As
I recall, Olympus does make such a thing -- a 4-element close-up
attachment. It's probably kind of pricey, but if it will help me to
avoid this problem, it'll be worth it. My advice at this point: if
you want to get close, close, closer, consider one of those
close-up attachments -- rather than the inexpensive filters.

One participant here has been heard to say several times that you
"won't notice much of a difference" if you use the inexpensive
filters. Well, maybe you won't all the time. And then again, you'll
eventually encounter the situation I have just encountered -- and
like me you'll wish you'd-a spent the additional money. It is,
after all, a get-what-you-pay-for sort of world...
Click to expand...
 
David 2100uz said:
Real Macro-photography is very expensive. A close-up lense set gets
you close to the object and close to macro-photography but not very
close. One gets what one pays for. I am doubtful that any add on
lenses will be much of an improvement over good close-up lenses. I
am glad that the UZi does macro as well as it does and for those
shots where the frame does not fill with the object, I'll use the
close-ups.
Click to expand...
Surely a multi-element lens is at least marginally better than these filters. The hoped-for result is that there would be no more (or little more) "fringing" than is the case with the digital camera in the raw, as it were. I knew from experience years ago that inexpensive "macro filters" will usually introduce this problem. At best you'll see the "fringing" around sharp edges. At worst, you'll get a sort of vague fog of "fringing" over the entire image. I must have been hoping against hope that It Will Never Happen To Me when I bought the filters. Of course, it did happen.

Yeah, I shoulda been using a D30 and that great 100mm macro lens. ;-)

No complaint in this respect, however: the subject matter was a bit difficult -- thin, back-lit flower petals -- and the ability to preview the exposure in the EVF was a great advantage. It would be all too easy to lose critical highlight detail in such a situation. Nope. I ensured that the image looked right in the EVF; I backed off 1/3 stop...bingo. Exactly the right exposure to retain detail in those fairly delicate highlights. One shot did it -- good thing, because I had almost run out of space on the SM card. Nice job, C2100...

Of course, I can't make a satisfactory print of this image to save my life, but that's hardly the camera's doing. I hate it when that happens. I'd love to be able to blame the equipment. Damn. :-)
 
Nikon and a handful of other manufacturers make or used to make a 2-element close-up filter. Highly recommended if you can find one. The Nikon's was $50.00 or so new.
 
MikeA said:
I put 'lenses' in quote because although technically speaking they
are lenses after a fashion, they're really just filters. I'm
referring to Hoya and other screw-in filters that provide close-in
capability. These are handy, all right. But I continue to run into
a problem I ran into long ago with film cameras: these filters,
useful though they might be, nearly always produce color "fringing"
-- chromatic aberration.
Click to expand...
Several manufacturers have made achromatic (multi-element) close-up lenses

over the years, and you can try to make your own. If you buy two different lenses

(they're not filters - they don't filter anything) such as a plus 3 and a plus 2 made
by different manufacturers and space them with a thin spacer, you can have
a plus 5 close-up lens which probably won't have chromatic aberrations.

(If the index of the glass used is different, it should work pretty well). I used
a heliopan and a B&W (both coated) and it worked well - its a nice project.

Darrell
 
Yes...come to think of it, I have heard of those (in the dim past). I will have a look around.

$50. At that price, the filter should be an honored guest at the dinner table. :) [Imagine the cost of the 72mm or 77mm version.]
MVittands said:
Nikon and a handful of other manufacturers make or used to make a
2-element close-up filter. Highly recommended if you can find one.
The Nikon's was $50.00 or so new.
Click to expand...
 
The filter "barrels" themselves are not sufficient as spacers?
Darrell Spreen said:
Several manufacturers have made achromatic (multi-element) close-up lenses
over the years, and you can try to make your own. If you buy two
different lenses (they're not filters - they don't filter anything)
such as a plus 3 and a plus 2 made by different manufacturers and
space them with a thin spacer, you can have a plus 5 close-up lens
which probably won't have chromatic aberrations.
Click to expand...
 
My experience has been very different then yours. I have used the Hoya +1,+2,+4 Close up set for over a year and have never experienced "fringing" . I have used these filters with both my C3000 and my 2100uz. Is there any partiular situation in which this happens? I usually use mine outside in bright conditions for photographing insects and flowers.
MikeA said:
I put 'lenses' in quote because although technically speaking they
are lenses after a fashion, they're really just filters. I'm
referring to Hoya and other screw-in filters that provide close-in
capability. These are handy, all right. But I continue to run into
a problem I ran into long ago with film cameras: these filters,
useful though they might be, nearly always produce color "fringing"
-- chromatic aberration.

Photoshop's "replace color" command can be effective in reducing or
even eliminating this problem in some images. But just now I have a
shot in which dropping the saturation of the "fringing" caused by
the inexpensive Hoya close-up filter will effectively ruin the shot
-- the same color appears in other portions of the image and
removing it would be a disaster. Getting rid of the "fringing"
problem is going to require a much different -- and probably very
time-consuming -- approach in this case.

This tells me to start using the Hoya filters as small paperweights
from now on -- and find a decent macro attachment for the C2100. As
I recall, Olympus does make such a thing -- a 4-element close-up
attachment. It's probably kind of pricey, but if it will help me to
avoid this problem, it'll be worth it. My advice at this point: if
you want to get close, close, closer, consider one of those
close-up attachments -- rather than the inexpensive filters.

One participant here has been heard to say several times that you
"won't notice much of a difference" if you use the inexpensive
filters. Well, maybe you won't all the time. And then again, you'll
eventually encounter the situation I have just encountered -- and
like me you'll wish you'd-a spent the additional money. It is,
after all, a get-what-you-pay-for sort of world...
Click to expand...
 
I use the same set as bob, and have yet to see the purple fringing. I did some work with a tiny green garden frog against a white background - no fringing at all. (No frogs were hurt or eaten in this production.)
http://y42.photos.yahoo.com/bc/fotoflambe/lst?.dir=/Garden+Frog&.src=ph&.last=1

If you continue to run into the problem, could you have a poor set of lenses? I may not have used them yet in a situation where CA would occur.

Mark Devine
bob said:
MikeA said:
I put 'lenses' in quote because although technically speaking they
are lenses after a fashion, they're really just filters. I'm
referring to Hoya and other screw-in filters that provide close-in
capability. These are handy, all right. But I continue to run into
a problem I ran into long ago with film cameras: these filters,
useful though they might be, nearly always produce color "fringing"
-- chromatic aberration.

Photoshop's "replace color" command can be effective in reducing or
even eliminating this problem in some images. But just now I have a
shot in which dropping the saturation of the "fringing" caused by
the inexpensive Hoya close-up filter will effectively ruin the shot
-- the same color appears in other portions of the image and
removing it would be a disaster. Getting rid of the "fringing"
problem is going to require a much different -- and probably very
time-consuming -- approach in this case.

This tells me to start using the Hoya filters as small paperweights
from now on -- and find a decent macro attachment for the C2100. As
I recall, Olympus does make such a thing -- a 4-element close-up
attachment. It's probably kind of pricey, but if it will help me to
avoid this problem, it'll be worth it. My advice at this point: if
you want to get close, close, closer, consider one of those
close-up attachments -- rather than the inexpensive filters.

One participant here has been heard to say several times that you
"won't notice much of a difference" if you use the inexpensive
filters. Well, maybe you won't all the time. And then again, you'll
eventually encounter the situation I have just encountered -- and
like me you'll wish you'd-a spent the additional money. It is,
after all, a get-what-you-pay-for sort of world...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MikeA said:
The filter "barrels" themselves are not sufficient as spacers?
Click to expand...
I found an improvement when they were spaced apart the distance
of an additional filter ring. I did it as an experiment and was surprised
to find that the CA was eliminated. I see some other postings that say
they have seen no problem with Hoya lenses either - I don't know if they
were using them in pairs or singly.

Darrell
 
I have been using the Hoyas singly, in pairs and all three stacked. No CA as of yet. I have been shooting indoors and out, many different colors and backgrounds, natual light, available indoor light, makeshift studio light and flash.

I will take a closer look again tonight.

Mark
Darrell Spreen said:
I see some other postings that say they have seen no problem with
Hoya lenses either - I don't know if they were using them in pairs or
singly.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike - I don't actually have a 2100, but I have done some fooling around with an old Pentax 50mm lens reversed in front of my D460, and it works really well - focusing is tricky, especially since there is no connection point between the lens and the camera, but the magnification is excellent.

This technique is used by film photographers as well, with good results - if you are interested in a little project, why not find a decent 50mm or smaller (the shorter the lens, the more magnification when reversed) SLR lens with a 49mm thread on in a pawn shop - you should be able to get it cheap there. Then get a 49-49 reversing ring, and attach the lens to your 2100.

Now you have a focusable macro lens that should (again, I have no experience with the 2100) work much better than the diopters that you are currently using for closeups. I have a set of Vivitar Diopters, and though easy to use, the quality isn't as good as the Pentax.

Happy tinkering!

Thomas

PS Here is a sample - the inside of the flower here is less than 1/2" across. This pic is downscaled by 50% as well. Focus isn't perfect; as I say, handholding a camera and a lens is a less than ideal platform. Next time I'll use my tripod =) The main point is there is no CA at the edges of the pic - thanks to the excellent glass in the Pentax lens.

 
lenses...All my other lenses are Hoya so I'm sure I'll stick them, but I was wondering if you use the multi-coated ones or just the basic ones? Thanks.

Jan in CA
bob said:
My experience has been very different then yours. I have used the
Hoya +1,+2,+4 Close up set for over a year and have never
experienced "fringing" . I have used these filters with both my
C3000 and my 2100uz. Is there any partiular situation in which this
happens? I usually use mine outside in bright conditions for
photographing insects and flowers.
Click to expand...
 
The idea of reversing a lens has been mentioned before in various forums, but I has assumed this would not be practical with the C2100. Now that I think about it some more, I can't imagine why I would have thought this. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it further...
 
Mark Devine wrote:
http://y42.photos.yahoo.com/bc/fotoflambe/lst?.dir=/Garden+Frog&.src=ph&.last=1
DriftlessMatters said:
If you continue to run into the problem, could you have a poor set
of lenses? I may not have used them yet in a situation where CA
would occur.
Click to expand...
I see what I think might be very, very slight fringing in your photograph, but it's really difficult to tell -- if you have to look as hard as I did to find it, it's an inconsequential problem...or else the viewer is hopelessly compulsive. :-)

This whole business is somewhat mysterious. As you've no doubt seen, there are whole threads devoted to it. It might be that some cameras are more susceptible to it than others; certain situations are fraught with color-fringing peril, perhaps, whereas others aren't. In this case the strong backlighting, and the presence of a very bright highlight (though not a specular highlight) adjacent to a very dark background might have contributed to the problem.

It was instructive to the extent that it forced me to learn a bit more about using Photoshop's magic-wand tool, and using the "Replace Color" command. As it happened, simply selecting the color in question and using "Replace Color" would have had ill effects elsewhere in the image; so the change had to be made only in selected portions of the image. So...it wasn't a complete loss. But I'd have preferred a somewhat different excuse for working with "Replace Color" and the wand tool. :-)

It's certainly possible that this particular set of close-up lenses ain't the greatest. I would not expect Hoya lenses to be that far "off"; on the other hand, I have noticed when using them that there is always a slight "sheen" of chromatic aberration over whole areas of the image. I don't mean the really intense color "fringing" that is sometimes referred to in forum messages as "CA"; I mean the kind of subtle chromatic aberration that can be a characteristic of mediocre optics. Yeah...maybe this particular filter set is of less than sterling quality.
 
MikeA said:
The idea of reversing a lens has been mentioned before in various
forums, but I has assumed this would not be practical with the
C2100. Now that I think about it some more, I can't imagine why I
would have thought this. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into
it further...
Click to expand...
Here's a post with some examples of a 50mm lens attached to the 2100:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&page=1&message=961444

Forgot to mention in that post that none of the images were cropped, they are at different levels of zoom.
 
MikeA said:
Marty Schultz said:
Here's a post with some examples of a 50mm lens attached to the 2100:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&page=1&message=961444
Click to expand...
Interesting...so the filter is first taped to the C2100's outer
barrel?
Click to expand...
No, I taped the filter to the 50mm lens (the end of the barrel of the old lens is the same size as the filter ring), then attached it to the 2100 with the threads on the filter. Electrical tape holds it on pretty good, haven't bothered to get an adapter ring since I don't do macros that much. I don't use the 82A filter anymore either so I might take the glass out and just leave the ring attached to the 50mm lens.
 
Interesting macro thread here ("Extreme macro" ... wow):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1246140
Marty Schultz said:
No, I taped the filter to the 50mm lens (the end of the barrel of
the old lens is the same size as the filter ring), then attached it
to the 2100 with the threads on the filter. Electrical tape holds
it on pretty good, haven't bothered to get an adapter ring since I
don't do macros that much. I don't use the 82A filter anymore
either so I might take the glass out and just leave the ring
attached to the 50mm lens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top