B-300 as opposed to close-up filters

Are there any huge downsides to going the filter route? Seems that filters are available for less than $20.00 instead of ten times that much for the lens. Is the lens ten times better? Also, what does +1, +2 diopter mean? Is 1 and 2 times closer?

Tom G. said:

Are there any huge downsides to going the filter route? Seems that
filters are available for less than $20.00 instead of ten times
that much for the lens. Is the lens ten times better? Also, what
does +1, +2 diopter mean? Is 1 and 2 times closer?

Click to expand...

Those close-up filters are only going to work at less than 12 inches from the subject. The B-300 is a telephoto adapater, not a macro lens. It will only work from longer ranges.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The close-up lenses are just magnifying glasses that screw in like a filter. I don't have anything against them, I use them myself.

+1 magnifies a little, +2 twice as much, the rest you can figure out. You can stack the filters. Some come in sets of 3 with a +1, +2, and +4. Using those in combination gives you everything from +1 to +7.

Thanks Charles. I suppose it may have sounded like a stupid question. I appreciate your taking the time to answer anyway.

No, Tom. It was not a stupid question. Please don't interpret my 3 days of silence as my agreement with your statement.

Sunday night one of my dogs got violently ill. She has been in the hospital ever since, and I spend a lot of time there.

Between that and watching the coverage of the terrorist attacks, I've been too busy to spend time on this forum.

Tom G. said:

Thanks Charles. I suppose it may have sounded like a stupid
question. I appreciate your taking the time to answer anyway.

Click to expand...

Tom G. said:

Thanks Charles. I suppose it may have sounded like a stupid
question. I appreciate your taking the time to answer anyway.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's easy to see your logic. Both tele's and close up filters accomplish the same thing...getting you closer to the subject. Which one to use depends on your working distance.

I've posted some examples for someone else that had a question about close up filters. Here's the link:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&page=1&message=1516695

Hope this gives you some insight on how they are used.

Daff

Daff said:

Actually, it's easy to see your logic. Both tele's and close up
filters accomplish the same thing...getting you closer to the
subject.

Click to expand...

Well ... not that simple. They really don't accomplish the same thing at all. The filter allows YOU to get close to the subject ... the tele allows the subject to APPEAR closer to you. Makes little difference if you are taking a picture of a flower ... makes all the difference if you are taking a picture of a bear ... unless it is an extremely friendly bear ... or a very belligerant flower!

poster said:

Daff said:

Actually, it's easy to see your logic. Both tele's and close up
filters accomplish the same thing...getting you closer to the
subject.

Click to expand...

Well ... not that simple. They really don't accomplish the same
thing at all. The filter allows YOU to get close to the subject
... the tele allows the subject to APPEAR closer to you. Makes
little difference if you are taking a picture of a flower ... makes
all the difference if you are taking a picture of a bear ... unless
it is an extremely friendly bear ... or a very belligerant flower!

Click to expand...

Well, Poster

I was intentionally keeping it simple and attempting to ease Tom G.'s feeling that he'd asked a stupid question.

I believe everything that you made a point of was obviously implied in my phrase, "Which one to use depends on your working distance." Curiously, that phrase is omitted in your response.

So let's see...I try to help this guy settle his confusion by providing sample pics and a very simple explanation...and you help by telling us not to use close up filters on bears. Wow, I figured most folks would know that.

Daff