Another close-up thread... some specific questions.

I've been trying to make some close-up shots with my "new" GF1 in the garden and really enjoyed it. I have no specific close-up setup, the lens used was the lumix 14-45mm at 45mm and a tripod. Manual focus, some pp in aperture.





Since I'd like to spend some time between the herbs in the future, some questions, sorry if they may seem obvious...

1. This image is heavily cropped. The minimum focus distance of the 14-45mm is 0,3m/1ft (written on the lens). Does this mean the distance between the subject and the end of the lens, or the distance between the subject and the sensor?

2. Anyway, I'd love to to get a greater magnification. Is this lens ok for it (I also have the lumix 20mm but I suppose the 14-45mm is more suitable?) and has someone experience with the 14-45mm and specific close-up lenses (canon, raynox?). I'd rather go this way than a legacy lens because I want to take the setup with me on the road. Or go with extension tubes?

3. Any other comments regarding this exposure are appreciated. I'll start myself: smaller aperture.
4. And finally, anyone knows what this caterpillar will become when grown up?

Thanks for reading,

Raf

I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, but I also use a GF1 and like to do closeups so I would put my 2 cents in I like to use my 70-300mm lens and fully zoom in for my closeup. Some people add a diopter (such as the Canon 500D or Panasonic LC55) and get great results. Look for posts by LTZ470 here and you will see some amazing shots. I don't do as well with the addition of a diopter. The shot of the butterfly below is straight 300mm zoom (nearly full size, maybe a 90% crop). The stink bug is 300mm + LC55, again almost full size.

By the way, your caterpillar is a Cinnabar Moth Caterpillar.









--
yuki

Thanks for the clarification yuki! Nice images too.

I'm sure there are way better lenses for close-ups, but I'd love to hear a solution for the 14-45mm and a diopter (or extension tubes), for the sake of portability....

Raf

A close-up lens like the Canon 500D or Nikon 6T would work well with your kit lens. Haven´t tried others, e.g. the Raynox. To achieve higher reproduction ratios you would need a lens with longer focal length (to combine with the close-up) or a true macro lens. Just in case, your kit lens has a 52 mm filter thread but I would recommend to get a larger (62 or even 67 mm) close-up lens, which would fit with an adapter ring.

I think the 20mm focuses closer than the kit lens, bigger image size. When I travel with the 20 I will usually leave the macro at home, because other than real serious macro work, the 20mm will do fine.

One inexpensive way to do ultra close ups is to buy a set of closeup lenses. They're not very expensive at all, and won't have much of a negative effect on image quality. Usually come in sets of 3, and you can stack them to get closer. I wouldn't buy the cheapest ones out there, but I can also say that in 99% of cases, multi-coating doesn't do much to help, so it's not terribly expensive.

If you got extension tubes (I didn't know they were available for m4/3) I'd definitely work with the 20mm. Can't say for sure about the kit lens, but in years of working with a lot of lenses in a lot of situations, zoom lenses are pretty sensitive to any messing around. As an example, I wonder that the adjustment for distortion that the camera does will do to the image with extension tubes.

dr_elis said:

A close-up lens like the Canon 500D or Nikon 6T would work well with your kit lens. Haven´t tried others, e.g. the Raynox.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I read that the Canon 250D is recommended for the focal length of my lens. And the magnification is greater than the 500D?

dr_elis said:

To achieve higher reproduction ratios you would need a lens with longer focal length (to combine with the close-up) or a true macro lens.

Click to expand...

For the moment, portabiilty (and cost!) are main factors in my decision making...

dr_elis said:

Just in case, your kit lens has a 52 mm filter thread but I would recommend to get a larger (62 or even 67 mm) close-up lens, which would fit with an adapter ring.

Click to expand...

To avoid vignetting I guess?

Raf

rafke said:

To avoid vignetting I guess?

Click to expand...

Mainly for flexibility, other lenses may have other (larger) filter threads than your kit lens. Best to buy one big close-up, which can be used with any lens you might have at some stage via very cheap adapter rings.

Ednaz said:

I think the 20mm focuses closer than the kit lens, bigger image size. When I travel with the 20 I will usually leave the macro at home, because other than real serious macro work, the 20mm will do fine.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll try this out.

Member said:

One inexpensive way to do ultra close ups is to buy a set of closeup lenses. They're not very expensive at all, and won't have much of a negative effect on image quality. Usually come in sets of 3, and you can stack them to get closer. I wouldn't buy the cheapest ones out there, but I can also say that in 99% of cases, multi-coating doesn't do much to help, so it's not terribly expensive.

Click to expand...

You mean something like the aforementioned canons or LC55?

Member said:

If you got extension tubes (I didn't know they were available for m4/3) I'd definitely work with the 20mm. Can't say for sure about the kit lens, but in years of working with a lot of lenses in a lot of situations, zoom lenses are pretty sensitive to any messing around. As an example, I wonder that the adjustment for distortion that the camera does will do to the image with extension tubes.

Click to expand...

I don't know neither... was just guessing...

Raf

rafke said:

Thanks for the clarification yuki! Nice images too.

I'm sure there are way better lenses for close-ups, but I'd love to hear a solution for the 14-45mm and a diopter (or extension tubes), for the sake of portability....

Raf

Click to expand...

Raf - you got me curious so I went out a did a really quick experiment with my GF1 + 14-45mm lens, using LC55 and Raynox250 and their combination. Please keep in mind these are posted for comparison of magnification, not necessarily for image quality because I did it very quickly, handheld and it's windy outside! For reference, this flower is about 3/4 inches (1.8cm) across. Note the vignetting with the diopters.

No.1 14-45mm only
No.2 14-45mm + LC55
No.3 14-45mm + Raynox 250
No.4 14-45mm + LC55 + Raynox 250

















--
yuki

Talk about a helpful post, thanks an awful lot Yuki!

What I see is that the vignetting is ok with the LC55 (55mm diameter?), but the magnification maybe not worth it.

The Raynox 250 looks like what I want, except the vignetting that is really too much (is it 46mm diameter + adapter?).

Maybe the Canons are what I need then, they have diameters from 52 mm and +. I'm curious to learn the differences between the 250D and 500D.

Thanks again,

Raf.

Whilst I don't have this particular lens, I've specialised in macro photography for a long time and understand the technical aspects. Please see my Flickr Photostream.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9578475@N02/ .

With close-up lenses, the strength is measured in diopters (also spelt as dioptre), the higher the diopter number, the close it brings something into focus. The magnification depends on the focal length of the lens, and its native close-focusing ability.

Here are some diopter figures.

1) Raynox DCR-150 = +4.8 diopters
2) Raynox DCR-250 = +8 diopters
3) Canon 250D = +4 diopters
4) Canon 500D = +2 diopters
5) Nikon 6T = +2.9 diopters

If you add one of these close-up lenses to any lens, with the lens focused at infinity, the distance they will bring the lens into focus at (approx. from the end of the lens - what is called working distance) is the reciprocal of the diopter number in metres. So for instance for a 2 diopter close-up lens it is 1/2 = 0.5m. For a 4 diopter lens it is 1/4 = 0.25m, and so on. If you use the lens' focus ring, and focus closer, the distance will get closer. How much closer depends on the particular lens and its native close-focusing ability. With a macro lens, which already has a good close focusing ability, you will get much closer. Whereas with a normal lens, the effect will not be so great. The distances with the lens focus ring at infinity are the same for any focal length lens a given diopter power is attached to. So the longer the focal length, the greater the magnification i.e. frame filling power. In other words a +4 diopter power close-up lens attached to a 200mm lens, will have much more magnification than if it is attached to a 45mm lens, which will in turn provide more magnification than if it is attached to a 20mm lens.

In other words, the shorter the focal length of the main lens, the more powerful the close-up lens has to be to get a decent amount of magnification

An additional problem with close-up lenses is that the shorter the focal length, the greater the chance of vignetting. If you attach a close-up lens to a main zoom lens with a wide-angle end, and you zoom, the vignetting will get much worse as you zoom out.

Whilst the Raynoxs are quite small diameter lenses, they work well on longer focal length lenses without vignetting. So with the Ranox DCR-250 on my Sigma 150mm macro lens, which has a 72mm filter thread (I have to use a stepping ring), there is no vignetting. Whereas on a 14-45mm lens, it is a bit marginal and depending on the particular lens, it might just work at the 45mm end, but you will certainly get vignetting zooming out. But with some standard zooms you will get vignetting with the DCR-250 even at the long end. Yet the lens would be fine on something like the 45-200mm.

If you use a close-up lens with a wider filter thread like a Canon 250D, you will not get vignetting. The problem is that +4 diopters on a 45mm lens doesn't give you that much extra magnification, although it would on something like a 200mm lens. Hoya do make a +10 diopter close-up lens available in wider filter threads (I think they go up to 58mm - they are available in different filter threads). They used to be a similar price to Raynox DCR-250s, but I haven't checked the price lately. It is a good lens, but in my experience not quite as good as the DCR-250. Nevertheless, the +10 may be a good choice for a shortish lens like a 45mm. There are some other makes of +10 diopter achromat multi-element lens, but I can't speak for their performance as I've never tried them. Just Google Hoya +10 close-up lens, or +10 close-up lens, and you will find plenty.

With close-up lenses, make sure they are multi-element achromats. The single element close-up lenses, even from expensive brands, do not perform as well, and tend to be soft at the edges.

btw. On your standard 14-45mm zoom, the close-focus of 0.30m/30cm is the distance from the image sensor to the subject, and not from the end of the lens to the subect.

Ask any other questions, if anything is not clear. I like your caterpillar shot, and it looks like a Cinnabar Moth Caterpillar if you are interested - normally you find them on Ragwort.

I've given a long explanation, so in future this can be linked to rather than having to explain it all again.

SteB's post is an excellent explanation of the various diopters. In my personal opinion and observation, Panasonic (LC55) and the Canons are better quality glass than the Raynox. Ranox lens is also only around 43mm so you can't avoid the vignette. If you get the LC55, you need a stepup ring (52mm to 55mm, they are cheap). Canons are lot more expensive but I think they make a 52mm so you won't need a ring, and I think they are the best quality of these 3.

--
yuki

rafke said:

1. This image is heavily cropped. The minimum focus distance of the 14-45mm is 0,3m/1ft (written on the lens). Does this mean the distance between the subject and the end of the lens, or the distance between the subject and the sensor?

Click to expand...

It means the distance between object and focal-plane aká sensor, so the distance between camera and object will stay constant, regardless of the focal-length. Obviously this also means, you get the highest magnification at the tele-end.

rafke said:

2. Anyway, I'd love to to get a greater magnification. Is this lens ok for it (I also have the lumix 20mm but I suppose the 14-45mm is more suitable?) and has someone experience with the 14-45mm and specific close-up lenses (canon, raynox?).

Click to expand...

The 14-45mm is OK, 45-200mm will be better, and the 14-140mm or the 100-300mm even better. Of course the ideal lens would be the PL 45mm macro, but of course it is rather expensive.

Of course the tele-lenses require faster shutter-speeds at their tele-end and all the tele-lenses lose some sharpness at their long end, so the advantage in reality over the 14-45mm (which is excellent at 45mm) is somewhat less then the absolute magnification-numbers will indicate.

The 20mm is not really usable for close-up-work, the 20cm focal-distance will give much less magnification than the 30cm at 45mm of the 14-45mm

If you don´t want to spent so much money on the 45mm macro-lens, you can get a close-up-lens, that will fit on every lens and reduce the minimum focus-distance. I can recommend the Raynox-lenses, which are quite cheap and produce good quality.

Generally Tele-lenses are better suited for macro, not just because they give you usually a higher maximum magnification than a standard-zoom, but also the bigger distance makes it easier to get pictures of living objects.

Many thanks SteB for your detailed and clear explanation. (After a few times reading, that is, I'll try to blame it to my knowledge of English and not my little brains...)

One thing I'm still wondering about is the focal distance and working distance.

On the 14-45mm is stated 30 cm as focal distance, this is from the image sensor to the object. So, whit the lens fully zoomed out at 45mm the working distance is 30 cm minus the length between the image sensor and the end of the lens (11 cm) = 19 cm. Am I right?

Focused to infinity the working distance of a 4 dioptre close-up lens is 25 cm, disregarding the lens. Yes? So I loose some working distance, but do get some magnification by the strength of the diopters?

Is that right or am I missing something...

Thanks for the link to your flickr page, I'm sure I'll spend quite some more time to explore your wonderful macros.

Raf

Thanks for the input!

It looks like a decent close-up lens is the way to go for me at the moment.

The Raynox however shows so much vignetting at 45mm (see post of ysal), where even cropping wouldn't always be possible to eliminate I think.

So I'll have a look into Canon 500D and 250D (52mm filter threads, and if I decide one day to go for the lumix 45-200mm it's also 52mm). The dioptre strength of the 250D (+4) is maybe not quite enough, let alone the 500D (+2).

So I'll also look for the Hoya +10 as SteB suggested, but it seems not easy to find here in Belgium.

Also, I just read somewhere that one can use op to two close-up lenses mounted and have the combined magnification. Any thoughts on this? I would think it would not benefit the IQ...

Raf

rafke said:

Also, I just read somewhere that one can use op to two close-up lenses mounted and have the combined magnification. Any thoughts on this? I would think it would not benefit the IQ...

Raf

Click to expand...

Raf - I was going to suggest getting 2, if you can afford it. You can stack them together and get even more magnification when you need it. My last example of the flower is the LC55 and Raynox 250 put together. Most diopters screw into each other so you can stack them.
--
yuki

In my case E-PL1 and Panasonic 14-45mm.

At closest focus at 45mm the frame width captured is about 100m side to side.

With Nikon 4T (52mm thread, +2.9 dioptre) now about 68mm side to side. No corner vignette at all at any focal length setting of that lens.

With Raynox 250 (with 52-43mm step-down, +8 dioptre) now about 42mm captured side to side with a touch of corner vignette.

The longer the host lens the better so in my case with the Oly 14-150 or 40-150mm at 150mm makes for quite sensational macro at huge working distance using just the +2.9 dioptre Nikon.

When using the 43mm diameter Raynox on my 58mm threaded Oly 40-150mm there is no vignetting but on the 14-150mm there is severe vignetting. So it's all experimental as to how a lens may behave.

The cheap and easy way is to buy a set of cheap singlet dioptres at 52mm thread size and experiment to get an idea of what dioptre strength is needed. You can stack them to add strength to see what happens, but of course the quality can be a bit dodgy if making +8 dioptre by stacking +4 and +3 and +1, but you get an idea of what's possible.

If memory serves the Canon 250D is 250mm focal length thus +4 dioptre, and 500D is 500mm focal length and thus +2 dioptre. They would work better with a host focal length longer than the 45mm of your kit lens. The Nikon 6T and 4T are both +2.9 dioptre double element lenses and 62mm and 52mm threads respectively.

The other way is to get a real macro lens, AF is not needed for macro and in my case in my film days junk box I have a cheapo Nikon fit Cosina/Soligor/Phoenix/other_names 100mm f/3.5 macro that is not good wide open but is quite respectable at f/8 or so and via a cheap Nikon to M4/3 adapter some fun can be had. It natively goes to 1:2 for nominally 34.6mm side to side captured and also comes with a dedicated add-on front lens to get to 1:1 for 17.3mm side to side captured and all at a good working distance from the lens front.

Regards........... Guy

rafke said:

Many thanks SteB for your detailed and clear explanation. (After a few times reading, that is, I'll try to blame it to my knowledge of English and not my little brains...)

Click to expand...

Sorry for all the explanations, I was just covering every angle

rafke said:

One thing I'm still wondering about is the focal distance and working distance.

On the 14-45mm is stated 30 cm as focal distance, this is from the image sensor to the object. So, whit the lens fully zoomed out at 45mm the working distance is 30 cm minus the length between the image sensor and the end of the lens (11 cm) = 19 cm. Am I right?

Click to expand...

That's right

rafke said:

Focused to infinity the working distance of a 4 dioptre close-up lens is 25 cm, disregarding the lens. Yes?

Click to expand...

It will only be approximately 25cm, as I've found it varies a bit between lenses, but it will be in that area. Often I find that it is a bit closer than the theoretical distance.

rafke said:

So I loose some working distance, but do get some magnification by the strength of the diopters?

Click to expand...

I haven't tested this. But I suspect that with a working distance of 25cm, the magnification will be similar to the lens on it's own focused to the same distance (so the working distance is the same). On shorter focal lengths, with lower power close-up lenses - the magnification be lower with the lens focused on infinity and a close-up lens - than the bare lens can achieve on its own, at its minimum focusing distance. Of course if you focus the lens closer, you will always get closer with the close-up lens attached, than without it.

On shorter focal length lenses lower powered close-up lenses can be disappointing, in that they don't give much extra magnification.

rafke said:

Is that right or am I missing something...

Click to expand...

I think you've got it.

One important point with close-up lenses, is that they can sometime perform differently on different designs of lens. Sometimes you get a combination that doesn't work well, even though both the main lens and the close-up lens are normally good performers - just not together. It might be softness, CA, distortion or vignetting.

One thing to watch for with zoom lenses and added dioptres is that the focal length of internal focus lenses changes with closer focus. So the best effect may be with the host lens still at "infinity", or may be best at closest focus. You need to experiment at both ends of the focus scale.

A 150mm lens may shrink to less than 100mm focal length when at its closest focus thus lessening the effect of the added dioptre. Never tested exactly what happens but the effect is very obvious.

I tend to use manual infinity focus with the Raynox and Nikon 4T and then getting focus by moving to and fro and change framing size by zooming out towards wide.

Regards............ Guy

The fancy Canon closeups are not necessarily a great idea. They each were designed to work well with certain focal lengths, based on the filter size and a Canon lens designer giving a best guess as to which lenses might be the ones used. That's not a deal killer, but it means that you could pay a bundle and not get much better results than with the cheapest Hoya closeup set. I have a 77mm Canon closeup and I use it on my Nikkor 70-200VR zoom - Canon figured it would get used on lenses of the same type, and I get really good results. When I put the same lens on a Nikkor 24-70 zoom, there are issues with field flatness that aren't there with my B&W singlet closeup filters. Of course, the B&W singlets aren't as wonderful on the 70-200VR... So be aware that the Canon closeups are enough thought through that they're not always the best quality you can get with every lens.

Similar issues with the Nikkor closeup lenses. Nikon doesn't make them any more, but I picked up a couple at a camera store going out of business, and on the right lenses, they're fantastic. However, you do have to mess around (or do research) to figure out how to get the most out of them. For example, I thought I'd wasted my $$ when I saw the results from putting them on a Nikkor 105mm macro, then I found a site that said, on that lens you should reverse the closeup lens when using it on the 105mm macro. I did, and it was a major improvement. On other lenses, reversing the closeup lens throws your field flatness out of whack.

I tried my Nikkor closeup lenses on the Panny 20mm, and on the PanaLeica 45mm macro (required two layers of step down rings) and they were no better, and maybe worse, than the cheap Hoyas I'd picked up on sale. On the Panny 45-200, the Nikkor was pretty good at the shorter zoom end, awful on the longer. Of course, so is that lens.

Like most things photographic...YMMV, I suppose.