Close-up filter vs Post Process Crop

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.




Close-up filter




No filter - cropped image

JamesMorgan said:

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.

Close-up filter

No filter - cropped image

Click to expand...

The specific filters you get can vary GREATLY in quality. Most people I know that use them, including me, use Raynox. Mostly the Raynox DCR250. Its not a cheap filter. Images are very sharp. In some curcumstances Ive seen some aberations that didnt exist without it, but they arent ever bad, and easily correctible in post. I dont get too crazy testing on focus charts or newspapers though. I really just care about real world use, and I dont remember ever looking back at an image and seeing a flaw that let me know I was using it.

Images below used the Raynox250











--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

Unless you buy a really good one*, costing hundreds of dollars, you are better off with extension tubes. Or a proper macro lens. I've always found extension tubes just fine.

*The words to look for are "achromat" or "apochromat" & "flat-field" or some equivalents.

c h u n k said:

JamesMorgan said:

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.

Close-up filter

No filter - cropped image

Click to expand...

The specific filters you get can vary GREATLY in quality. Most people I know that use them, including me, use Raynox. Mostly the Raynox DCR250. Its not a cheap filter. Images are very sharp. In some curcumstances Ive seen some aberations that didnt exist without it, but they arent ever bad, and easily correctible in post. I dont get too crazy testing on focus charts or newspapers though. I really just care about real world use, and I dont remember ever looking back at an image and seeing a flaw that let me know I was using it.

Images below used the Raynox250

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have looked at the Raynox lenses, but I guess it does depend on what wildlife you typically photograph. The Raynox lenses are 5D and 8D which means you need to be around 10-20cm from the subject. I typically photograph dragonflies or butterflies and find my sweet spot is more like 50-100cm, so need a less powerful lens (1D is ideal).

I do get your overall point in that you get what you pay for. The Hoya lens is about £25 new whereas the Raynox is 2-3x that price

Jack Tingle said:

Unless you buy a really good one*, costing hundreds of dollars, you are better off with extension tubes. Or a proper macro lens. I've always found extension tubes just fine.

*The words to look for are "achromat" or "apochromat" & "flat-field" or some equivalents.

Click to expand...

I dont think this is good advice at all -

Raynox only cost around $70 (and it is an achromat). No where near hundreds. You could get both the 150 and 250 for around $130. They are considered amongst the best. Ive used both tubes and filters extensively. There are drawbacks to both, but I barely use tubes anymore. The issue with extension is 1) it often makes it harder to find the subject in the camera just due to the extension itself. If shooting in a studio type setting with static subject, this is not an issue. However, if shooting in the field it can mean getting the shot vs not. And having to clean your sensor a lot more. 2) Tubes are MUCH more inconvenient for a lot of uses. If changing magnification, you have to remove the lens and tubes from camera, then reattach the lens or reduce/add to extension. The Raynox has a clip on adapter and attaches/detaches instantly.

Lastly, if you read OP, he said he used it with a telephoto lens. You get more effect with filters at longer focal lengths and, conversely, less effect with tubes. He would not get the magnification with that lens and tubes.

*if the option was a telephoto with filter vs say a 50mm with tubes, I would usually opt for the 50mm and tubes due to its much smaller size as well as good IQ, but, once again, it isnt ideal for needing to change a lot on the field.

JamesMorgan said:

c h u n k said:

JamesMorgan said:

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.

Close-up filter

No filter - cropped image

Click to expand...

The specific filters you get can vary GREATLY in quality. Most people I know that use them, including me, use Raynox. Mostly the Raynox DCR250. Its not a cheap filter. Images are very sharp. In some curcumstances Ive seen some aberations that didnt exist without it, but they arent ever bad, and easily correctible in post. I dont get too crazy testing on focus charts or newspapers though. I really just care about real world use, and I dont remember ever looking back at an image and seeing a flaw that let me know I was using it.

Images below used the Raynox250

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have looked at the Raynox lenses, but I guess it does depend on what wildlife you typically photograph. The Raynox lenses are 5D and 8D which means you need to be around 10-20cm from the subject. I typically photograph dragonflies or butterflies and find my sweet spot is more like 50-100cm, so need a less powerful lens (1D is ideal).

I do get your overall point in that you get what you pay for. The Hoya lens is about £25 new whereas the Raynox is 2-3x that price

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, if you are looking at shooting well below true macro magnifications with a lot of working distance, and a telephoto, tubes are likely your best option. I wouldnt use cheap filters for this.

--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

c h u n k said:

JamesMorgan said:

c h u n k said:

JamesMorgan said:

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.

Close-up filter

No filter - cropped image

Click to expand...

The specific filters you get can vary GREATLY in quality. Most people I know that use them, including me, use Raynox. Mostly the Raynox DCR250. Its not a cheap filter. Images are very sharp. In some curcumstances Ive seen some aberations that didnt exist without it, but they arent ever bad, and easily correctible in post. I dont get too crazy testing on focus charts or newspapers though. I really just care about real world use, and I dont remember ever looking back at an image and seeing a flaw that let me know I was using it.

Images below used the Raynox250

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have looked at the Raynox lenses, but I guess it does depend on what wildlife you typically photograph. The Raynox lenses are 5D and 8D which means you need to be around 10-20cm from the subject. I typically photograph dragonflies or butterflies and find my sweet spot is more like 50-100cm, so need a less powerful lens (1D is ideal).

I do get your overall point in that you get what you pay for. The Hoya lens is about £25 new whereas the Raynox is 2-3x that price

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, if you are looking at shooting well below true macro magnifications with a lot of working distance, and a telephoto, tubes are likely your best option. I wouldnt use cheap filters for this.

Click to expand...

With my 75-300 lens I get around 0.18x native magnification. With cropping I can get get a further 2-3x this so it means I get this type of image (bear in mind I'm used m43 to already have a 2x crop factor, so 0.18 is similar to 0.36 on FF)





However, the MFD of the lens is 1.5m which isn't ideal and it also involves quite a lot of cropping. With a 1D close-up filter I can achieve a similar image without cropping and at a distance of 60cm from the subject. This is what I was trying to achieve, however, if the image quality isn't as good as the cropped image I might as well continue to use cropping.

With +26mm extension tubes I can achieve similar magnification to the 1D filter, but the MFD only reduces to 1.4m so it is less usable in the field.

JamesMorgan said:

c h u n k said:

JamesMorgan said:

c h u n k said:

JamesMorgan said:

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.

Close-up filter

No filter - cropped image

Click to expand...

The specific filters you get can vary GREATLY in quality. Most people I know that use them, including me, use Raynox. Mostly the Raynox DCR250. Its not a cheap filter. Images are very sharp. In some curcumstances Ive seen some aberations that didnt exist without it, but they arent ever bad, and easily correctible in post. I dont get too crazy testing on focus charts or newspapers though. I really just care about real world use, and I dont remember ever looking back at an image and seeing a flaw that let me know I was using it.

Images below used the Raynox250

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have looked at the Raynox lenses, but I guess it does depend on what wildlife you typically photograph. The Raynox lenses are 5D and 8D which means you need to be around 10-20cm from the subject. I typically photograph dragonflies or butterflies and find my sweet spot is more like 50-100cm, so need a less powerful lens (1D is ideal).

I do get your overall point in that you get what you pay for. The Hoya lens is about £25 new whereas the Raynox is 2-3x that price

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, if you are looking at shooting well below true macro magnifications with a lot of working distance, and a telephoto, tubes are likely your best option. I wouldnt use cheap filters for this.

Click to expand...

With my 75-300 lens I get around 0.18x native magnification. With cropping I can get get a further 2-3x this so it means I get this type of image (bear in mind I'm used m43 to already have a 2x crop factor, so 0.18 is similar to 0.36 on FF)

However, the MFD of the lens is 1.5m which isn't ideal and it also involves quite a lot of cropping. With a 1D close-up filter I can achieve a similar image without cropping and at a distance of 60cm from the subject. This is what I was trying to achieve, however, if the image quality isn't as good as the cropped image I might as well continue to use cropping.

With +26mm extension tubes I can achieve similar magnification to the 1D filter, but the MFD only reduces to 1.4m so it is less usable in the field.

Click to expand...

The *max* focal distance (which is what you want, right?) will not be nearly as close at 300mm as with a closeup. Its going to vary a lot from short end to long end with that lens. You can be several yards away.

--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

c h u n k said:

The *max* focal distance (which is what you want, right?) will not be nearly as close at 300mm as with a closeup. Its going to vary a lot from short end to long end with that lens. You can be several yards away.

Click to expand...

Ideally what I want is to convert my lens to have a native magnification of 0.4-0.5x (FF equivalent 0.8-1.0x) and be usable in a focal range of 50-100cm. This means I can get shots of my typical subjects that fill the frame, but don't involve me getting too close to them to spook them.

Whilst ET can provide the right magnification, I don't think they can get me the right focal range (you end up being too far from the subject which often makes composition difficult). A mild close up filter (+1D) seems to do everything I want if I can get one of the right quality.

My contingency plan is to use my 12-60 lens with an ET. This lens has a native mag of 0.27x (0.54x FF equiv) at MFD 25cm. A 16mm ET would convert this to 0.4x (0.8x FF) at MFD 24cm. It is a little too close to the subject for my liking but may be workable.

JamesMorgan said:

I am experimenting with macro and thought I would try a close-up filter. Managed to get a 2nd hand one very cheap (<£5 including postage). It is a Hoya HMC +1. Part of the reason for getting it is to verify that my calculations of improved image magnification were correct, which they were. I am able to get approx 2.5x extra magnification using my Olympus 75-300 focused around 65cm from subject.

However, I am dissapointed with the image quality. It is very soft. Even if I do lots of post processing work with tone curves and local contrast, I can't get the image as good as a simple cropped image without using the filter. Even if I use a tripod and get ISO down to 200, I can't get as good an image as a cropped image that is hand-held at ISO 6400. This largely removes any value using the filter.

Does anyone have any experience of using similar close-up filters? Are my results typical or am I likely to have simply bought a dud copy (not overly surprising at the price!)

As an example, below are 2 images - one without the filter but cropped to the same magnification as one with the filter.

Close-up filter

No filter - cropped image

Click to expand...

I have a Kenko +1 in 52mm that probably is the same filter as the Hoya. It might be a little better than yours, but I think the smaller diameter always seem better.

I don't think anyone makes a dual element +1 that you can buy individually. Mine was part of a single element set of +1, +2 and +4.

Just to update this thread, I eventually decided that the Hoya filter wasn't going to be up to the job. Decided instead to go for a Sigma Achromatic. This is slightly stronger than the Hoya at 1.6D which means with my 75-300 lens I need to be slightly closer to focus (44cm vs 60cm). I managed to pick up a cheap 2nd hand one on ebay for less than £10.

The Sigma filter is much sharper than the Hoya and more importantly is sharper than simply cropping photos taken without the filter. Only had it a couple of days but so far very impressed. It broadly does what I want. There is a slight issue with the focus distance of 44cm in the field as it is more difficult to take photos without disturbing the subject (or sometimes even to physically get that close).

Other than that the main issues are the basic issues of macro type photography. I'm sure most people on this forum are fully aware of these, but as a novice in this area I hadn't realised how difficult some of these are. The filter converts my lens into a 0.5x lens. With the m43 crop factor this produces a FF FOV equivalent of 1.0x. So whilst not true macro, the issues are similar. I knew depth of field would be challenging, but now with real experience I recognise just how challenging it will be. DoF is often only 1-2mm so very difficult handheld. I find focus bracketing the best approach to ensure that at least one photo has correct focus, however, typically only part of the subject is in focus. I have tried focus stacking on stationary objects such as plants which seems to work well but not so sure how practical this is in the field with moving objects such as butterflies.

Plenty of challenges for me to explore so I'm happy. A few sample photos so far... (the flower is about 1 cm across and produced from a focus stack of 30 photos)