Softness of cheap close-up filters

panafred wrote:

philzucker wrote:

panafred wrote:

Warning: this is about low end macro.

Not being busy, I decided to document, for myself, The focusing distance and image quality of a set of close-up filters (+1, +2,+4,+10 Neewer brand from Amazon) at a few focal lengths where they seemed to work best.

I set the camera (cheap Lumix FZ80) up in manual focus with focus-peaking turned on, placed it on a test bench beside a ruler, and placed a box with some text on the side, in front of it. I moved the box until focus peaking showed on the camera screen, and took a shot. I repeated this with the diferent filters and focal lengths, and recorded the working distances.

I expected softness in the outcomes, and indeed there was. Some combinations were useful however - for example +2, and +4 diopters at 90mm were fairly sharp (and gave 90 to 100mm of working distance)

The thing I didn't expect was the +10. I expected it to be soft, but it was so soft, that the focus peaking would not triggereven at best focus. I guess that proves how useless it is.

I will keep the +2 and +4 in my bag in case I want to take a macro shot while just carrying the cheap camera (which I often do because it is small and light).

Thanks for sharing your results!

I have to say that results can also depend on the lens you use the close up filters with. Some may perform better, some worse on different lenses. The cheaper single element lenses usually are okay at the center and not very good at the edges.

Achromats are much better, and I really can recommend the Raynox 150 - it gives you around 4.6 diopters with much better quality and isn't that expensive. Included is a nice snap-on holder that allows you to use it with different lenses and makes adding and removing it from your lens very easy.

Phil

I actually bought 58mm lenses, because they are more a more popular size, and fit my Canon. However, I am using them on the FZ80 with a 58 to 55 stepdown ring. Does this mean I am using less of the edges?

I don't think that will make much of a difference. Color abberations leading to loss of sharpness are the problem with single element lenses, and those are more pronounced on the edges due to the curvature of the lens, and less because of its diameter.

One of my aims is to see what strength I like. Given what I am seeing, I prefer the +4, so the Raynox 150 may be the next step here.

I bet you'll see a difference!

I should also mention that, for macro, my main rig has been a Canon 60mm macro on my 80D. So when I say something is soft, or acceptably sharp, that's my point of comparison.

Ah, good to know!

Phil