Cheaper Macro options

This is more a discussion than an in-depth scientific experiment, but from time-to-time people come on here looking for a cheap-ish macro option. The suggestions are usually a subset of:

* A new m43 macro lens (often expensive ones from people who missed "cheap" )
* A used m43 macro lens
* An AF adapter for a macro lens in another mount
* An MF adapter for an old macro lens
* Extension tubes
* (Plus if I'm posting) A macro adaptor on the front of a lens as an option to consider

This all dates back to when I had a Canon Powershot G7 and wanted to do macro shots. You could add a LensMate adaptor to give filter threads and then choose an add-on option. I had a little pile of bits, some of which will feature shortly, although (spoiler) the LenMate adaptor won't be appearing again.

Now I have some nice macro options for FF, which I could adapt, but I only have a SpeedBooster-alike, which isn't great here (less focal length not being ideal). I could buy a Metabones Smart Adaptor but it's a lot of money, plus the AF isn't inspiring.

Anyway, I bought a Fotodiox 62-58mm step-down ring (see on for why, BTW annoying as I have a ton of step up/down rings, but not this one) and tried the three G7 combos on my GH5 with the Oly 45/1.2 (as it's very sharp and a reasonable macro lens focal length of 90mm equiv.)

I literally shot these just across the road from the Post Office where I had just collected the adaptor.

Processed in C1P as the light was varying a lot and I wanted to even it out somewhat. Sharpness, Clarity and Structure are identical for all shots.

Shot with the 45/1.2 at just about its Minimum Focusing Distance. Should be about 0.1x macro ratio. Click "Original Size" below to see at full res.

Canon 500D close-up lens, 58mm version with step-down ring (they make several filter sizes of the 500D). There is the suggestion you should use the 250D at 45mm, but I don't have one. More: https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/close-up_lenses.do

Raynox DCR-250. Will fit lenses with filter threads 52-67mm. Note the effect of the thinner DoF as the magnification increases. More: http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr250/indexdcr250eg.htm

With the DCR-250 attached to the front of the 500D (always the most fun/challenging option on the G7)

You do get AF, although I mixed it with MF as the GH5 doesn't always focus where I want on this type of subject (part of the reason for choosing the 45/1.2, as the MF is great).

I don't have m43 extension tube at all, let along ones with the electrical contacts passed-through as you'd really want. So not appearing here, sorry.

I think my conclusion is just using the Raynox on its own is the one to start off with for me. Looking at all the photos I took I had the highest hit-rate for what I felt were good images with it. (Although do take the front lens cap off before going out, as it really likes staying where it is, however good fingernails you have... hmm, maybe I should buy a 49mm lens cap for it.)

Thoughts?

BTW no promises someone else's results will be in any way similar, these are just what I got. I have 2008 versions of both adaptors, no idea if they are the same/better/worse now. (I suspect there's a good chance they are very similar, if not identical. I'm pretty sure Canon would have used a mkII designation for any notable changes, if only to get people to upgrade.)

I purchased a Raynox DCR250 in 2008. I still use it constantly. I broke the spring bracket years ago and bought a cheap set of step rings so I can use it with any of my lenses. It is so versatile that it has come with me from my FZ20 through to all my mirrorless models.

I also have a set of Kenko extension tubes. They allow me to photograph insects from a greater distance but I only use it for flighty creatures in good light. With the camera further away from the insect flash has less effect. They don't get used much at all.

I have a Sigma 60 so don't want to double-up with the Olympus 60, and have won awards with shots taken with my Raynox so really don't see the need to buy a specialist macro lens. Even though the cost of one is not a problem.

Jon555 wrote:

Thoughts?

I think the Raynox diopters (150 and 250) are fantastic!!

Combined with a telephoto lens (even a cheap one like the 40-150) one can get wonderful results.

Recent example: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64022783

I have $80 Oly macro converter, screwed on the lens like

42.5/1.7

45175 /4-5.6

or 1260/2.8-4.0 with step down ring

The result is great, and should give me nearly or close to 1:1 ratio..

I use 10mm and 16mm (sometimes both) extension rings.

16mm ring behind the 42.5mm f/1.7 (at f/8) just barely fits a 35mm slide frame, or a negative. I've done lots of rephotographing both, because I have lots of old slides and color negatives from my father.

16mm and 10mm behind the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 roughly the same, also very nice to use.

Of course (as you probably know) you can't put 26mm of macro rings behind a 25mm lens, because there will be no place in front of the lens that can achieve focus.

I might as will stick in an example. This is photographed 35mm slide from fall of 1978, of my parents.

1978 slide, rephotographed - slightly cropped to eliminate cardboard frame edges

I use the cheap AF extension tube set (A <US$15 10mm +26mm Fotga tube set).

14-42 mk-I on GX7 & 16mm AF extension tube

The above is not for contest of any kind, just an OOC jpg test shot when I brought those extension tube set.

On using these extension tubes, they are much cheaper than other options, have original AF speed and accuracy preserved, and I can have a peace of mind not putting anything that might affect the original IQ of my lenses, but at a cost of very short shooting distance which might block ambient light or not applicable to all shooting environment.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Thanks heaps Jon, you made me realise that I had one of those Canon close up lenses from way back when. Now I have yet another project - go find it

BTW The 2-element ones are quite a bit better than the 1-element ones. The "D" at the end signified it is a Double-element one.

Oh and I did like this from the Canon article I linked...

"When you attach a close-up lens to your camera lens it acts a little like reading glasses for a far-sighted person."

Sorry, I had been talking about the Canon close-up lenses and had the 500D on my mind, but I actually have a Canon 250D along with the DCR-250 (so not confusing at all).

I`ve got the Olympus MCon-35 Pro - had it since the E10 days (yeah 20 years !!) , it`s 62mm , beautifully made 2 element apochromatic front end macro adapter .. I`ve used it on all sorts of stuff since from canon G series compacts of the 00s through DSLR lenses inc the canon 100 Macro etc and its worked well ........

Guess what - the Oly 12-40 F2.8 has a 62mm front end so I gave it a go at 40mm and it made no difference whatsoever to the closeup ability of that lens really sad about that because the 12-40 does pretty well anyway , it`d have been nice to have got even closer with it . Wonder why it didn`t work when it did on so many other lenses including Sigma, Canon & Nikon DSLR zooms

For years I used the Canon 500D on a Canon APC 70-300 MM lens and it worked fine. Now with my Olympus gear I have the 60 mm macro but I still use the 500D or the 250D with a step up ring on the macro as well as Meike auto extension tubes. I also use the 500D with my 14-150 mm and 75-300 mm when I do not bring the macro lens. I would not want to be without it.

If buying new, the most cost effective options have to be achromatic diopter lenses. They offer great IQ, are very easy to attach and use, small and light, and can be used and re-used across different formats and systems, and they retain full lens AF functionality. The best known diopters are probably the ones made by Raynox.

Also, unlike with cheap Chinese extension tubes, there are no problems with inferior materials and mechanical build. Whereas good quality extension tubes are best used for increasing magnification of a real macro lens. What the OP forgot to mention, is the possibility of using a teleconverter (provided one already owns one) along with extension tubes.

cba_melbourne wrote:

If buying new, the most cost effective options have to be achromatic diopter lenses. They offer great IQ, are very easy to attach and use, small and light, and can be used and re-used across different formats and systems, and they retain full lens AF functionality. The best known diopters are probably the ones made by Raynox.

Also, unlike with cheap Chinese extension tubes, there are no problems with inferior materials and mechanical build. Whereas good quality extension tubes are best used for increasing magnification of a real macro lens. What the OP forgot to mention, is the possibility of using a teleconverter (provided one already owns one) along with extension tubes.

I wasn't sure a £300 teleconverter/extender made the cut as what I was calling cheap

However one of my favourite macro combinations is a Canon 100-400 II with (or without) the 1.4x extender on a 50MP body.

The lens gives 0.31x and a large (!!) working distance
The extender gets you to 0.434x, without changing the working distance
A 1.6x crop to 19MP gets effectively 0.7x, again without changing the working distance

Sample (it's not the full-res version, a crop then scaled-down, plus not even particularly a macro shot, also no 1.4x, but see the Bee insert for what the scale is even then):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62189807

Of course if not also using extension tubes you need a macro-ish lens to start.

Jon555 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

If buying new, the most cost effective options have to be achromatic diopter lenses. They offer great IQ, are very easy to attach and use, small and light, and can be used and re-used across different formats and systems, and they retain full lens AF functionality. The best known diopters are probably the ones made by Raynox.

Also, unlike with cheap Chinese extension tubes, there are no problems with inferior materials and mechanical build. Whereas good quality extension tubes are best used for increasing magnification of a real macro lens. What the OP forgot to mention, is the possibility of using a teleconverter (provided one already owns one) along with extension tubes.

I wasn't sure a £300 teleconverter/extender made the cut as what I was calling cheap

It depends. If one already happens to own a TC (I bought it kitted together with the 40-150), then putting it to double use for macro is better than cheap - it is free

However one of my favourite macro combinations is a Canon 100-400 II with (or without) the 1.4x extender on a 50MP body.

The lens gives 0.31x and a large (!!) working distance
The extender gets you to 0.434x, without changing the working distance
A 1.6x crop to 19MP gets effectively 0.7x, again without changing the working distance

Sample (it's not the full-res version, a crop then scaled-down, plus not even particularly a macro shot, also no 1.4x, but see the Bee insert for what the scale is even then):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62189807

Of course if not also using extension tubes you need a macro-ish lens to start.

I’ve used the Raynox 150, for several years, on many lenses due its very flexible spring adapter. I’ve used it less in recent weeks because I bought the Canon 500D achromatic lens, 58mm filter fit. The Raynox, with its adapter, is easiest to use. The Canon has a slightly easier/ longer working depth and with a couple of step up/down rings can be used on a range of lenses ( 46, 52 plus the native 58mm). Either will serve you well.

Macro examples https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157672634286781

windmillgolfer wrote:

I’ve used the Raynox 150, for several years, on many lenses due its very flexible spring adapter. I’ve used it less in recent weeks because I bought the Canon 500D achromatic lens, 58mm filter fit. The Raynox, with its adapter, is easiest to use. The Canon has a slightly easier/ longer working depth and with a couple of step up/down rings can be used on a range of lenses ( 46, 52 plus the native 58mm). Either will serve you well.

Macro examples https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157672634286781

Some nice FX330 ones there, which brings us full-circle from when I started with this style of macro adaptor on a fixed-lens camera

Jon555 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

If buying new, the most cost effective options have to be achromatic diopter lenses. They offer great IQ, are very easy to attach and use, small and light, and can be used and re-used across different formats and systems, and they retain full lens AF functionality. The best known diopters are probably the ones made by Raynox.

Also, unlike with cheap Chinese extension tubes, there are no problems with inferior materials and mechanical build. Whereas good quality extension tubes are best used for increasing magnification of a real macro lens. What the OP forgot to mention, is the possibility of using a teleconverter (provided one already owns one) along with extension tubes.

I wasn't sure a £300 teleconverter/extender made the cut as what I was calling cheap

However one of my favourite macro combinations is a Canon 100-400 II with (or without) the 1.4x extender on a 50MP body.

The lens gives 0.31x and a large (!!) working distance
The extender gets you to 0.434x, without changing the working distance
A 1.6x crop to 19MP gets effectively 0.7x, again without changing the working distance

BTW the Working Distance is 57 cm (23") at 400mm.

Sample (it's not the full-res version, a crop then scaled-down, plus not even particularly a macro shot, also no 1.4x, but see the Bee insert for what the scale is even then):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62189807

Of course if not also using extension tubes you need a macro-ish lens to start.

Have a Oly 60mm, Canon 58mm 500d and a 77mm 500d left over from Nikon years which now is used on the PL100-400. The Canon stuff is really very good, the Oly 60 - a legend.

I occasionally use the 60 mm on my EM1M2 with the 500D and 26 mm extension tubes. This gets me to twice life size with very good image quality.