Larger diameter close-up filter and corner image quality

RGBRGB wrote:

Has anyone tried to use a larger diameter close-up filter to improve corner image quality (sharpness and chromatic aberration)?
I intend to use a Canon SX50 and a Hoya +4 close-up filter 72mm. I already have
a Hoya +4 52mm and I consider only the image center good.
I can get excelent results with the Raynox DCR-250.
If you own the Hoya +4 filter 72mm, can you tell how heavy it is?
I'm not interested in other macro/close-up techniques/equipment.
Thanks!

The Raynox 250 is a multi-element achromatic close-up lens. If the Hoya +4 is a single-element close-up filter then it would not be surprising that away from the centre it is not very good; that has been my experience from (albeit limited) testing I have done comparing close-up filters to achromats, with the close-up filters suffering from much worse chromatic aberration and blurriness away from the centre. If the Hoya +4 72mm is also a single-element close-up filter it might not be much of an improvement.

The Hoya +4 is less powerful than the Raynox 250, which is +8. If you want something less powerful than the Raynox 250 you might find the Raynox 150 good, which is +4.8. That was my most used close-up lens for over a decade, first on a Canon SX10 and then on similar Panasonic bridge cameras, FZ200 and FZ330. (I also used the Raynox 150 quite a bit on micro four thirds and to a lesser extent on APS-C, but my 1/2.3" sensor bridge camera experience is most relevant to your situation.)

I have tried larger diameter achromats, the +4 Canon 250D and +3 Marumi 330 and +5 Marumi 200, but I preferred the Raynox 150 and 250 (and for lower magnification, typically with flowers, I used the  +2 Canon 500D, also larger diameter than the Raynoxes). As you will know, you have to put up with vignetting at short focal lengths with the Raynoxes, but I found that a price worth paying in terms of the results I got. In any case, given the large focal length range of the SX50 you can ignore the shorter focal lengths and still have a very good range of magnifications available.

I have a 72mm Marumi 200 +5. It weighs 144 grams.

Yes the Hoya +4 72mm is a single-element close-up filter. So I think it won't be the right product for me. I think I'll buy a Raynox DCR-150. Can you get good results with the DCR-150 at any focal length like the DCR-250? I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.
Did you try your Marumi 72mm on your bridge cameras? Do you think that this filter is too heavy for the zoom mechanism?
Thanks for your help! By the way, your pictures are amazing! Do you crop your images to increase depth of field or do you use focus stacking? Are all of your flash diffusers on your flickr albums? Which diffuser would you use to photograph a ladybug? I would like to avoid a strong flash reflection.

Luisifer wrote:

I can recommend Raynox DCR-5320PRO A+B, but i use it only as tube lens:

https://12in.cz/klic/fotografie/73_0_Raynox-DCR-5320PRO-AB

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think that this lens is too heavy for a bridge camera.

RGBRGB wrote:

Yes the Hoya +4 72mm is a single-element close-up filter. So I think it won't be the right product for me. I think I'll buy a Raynox DCR-150. Can you get good results with the DCR-150 at any focal length like the DCR-250?

Yes. Until I switched to using a macro lens the year before last a Raynox 150 was my most used close-up lens for invertebrates for over 10  years. (I also had the Raynox 250, Canon 500D and 250D and the Marumi 200 and 330, but the Raynox 150 worked best for me.) I used the 150 with no problem on my bridge cameras at all focal lengths apart from the shortest focal lengths that produced vignetting.

I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.

I wasn't at all happy with the image quality from a Canon 250D, both the one I have now and the one I had before but sent back because I thought it was faulty (but the later one was no better).

Did you try your Marumi 72mm on your bridge cameras?  Do you think that this filter is too heavy for the zoom mechanism?

I haven't tried it. I have 52mm Marumi 200 that I tested on my bridge cameras (like the Canon 250D, I wasn't happy with the image quality). I only got the 72mm relatively recently to see how it worked on a full frame 24-240 lens which is very big, heavy and beefy. I wouldn't want to try it on one of my bridge cameras for fear of breaking the zoom mechanism.

Thanks for your help! By the way, your pictures are amazing! Do you crop your images to increase depth of field or do you use focus stacking?

I only crop for composition reasons, not deep crops to get significantly greater depth of field. [NOTE for those who care about such things. I know, you can't increase depth of field by cropping. But you can get greater depth of field for a particular scene from a cropped image than from an uncropped image covering the same scene from closer in using the same aperture. It is in this sense that I sometimes refer to this as "crop for DOF".]

I capture images of live, active insects in the field, often as they are moving around, or engaged in some activity such as grooming or wrapping prey. Focus stacking is for the most part not a practical option for my subject matter.

I get greater depth of field than most people because I use smaller apertures than most people. This results in images that are very soft and lack fine detail because of the blurring effect of diffraction. I make careful use of post processing to try to get what I can from the images and I keep my outputs small at 1300 pixels high.

Are all of your flash diffusers on your flickr albums?

A lot of them are, possibly most of them. You would need to go to my Flickr collections and in each year look at the Phototechnics collection to find them. My images/albums/collections are not indexed in any way that allows me to find them easily for you I'm afraid.

Which diffuser would you use to photograph a ladybug? I would like to avoid a strong flash reflection.

We all would. It is very difficult to avoid flash reflections on reflective surfaces. Some ladybugs/ladybirds are more reflective than others, and some of my subjects are more reflective than the worst of them. After years of trying I have given up trying to arrange lighting that produces no flash reflection on highly reflective surface. When I get flash reflections that trouble my eye I tone down the reflections in post processing, either by local adjustments to lightness and/or highlights, or by using low opacity cloning to damp down the reflections. Or I give up on the image.

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

Yes the Hoya +4 72mm is a single-element close-up filter. So I think it won't be the right product for me. I think I'll buy a Raynox DCR-150. Can you get good results with the DCR-150 at any focal length like the DCR-250?

Yes. Until I switched to using a macro lens the year before last a Raynox 150 was my most used close-up lens for invertebrates for over 10 years. (I also had the Raynox 250, Canon 500D and 250D and the Marumi 200 and 330, but the Raynox 150 worked best for me.) I used the 150 with no problem on my bridge cameras at all focal lengths apart from the shortest focal lengths that produced vignetting.

Why did you start using a macro lens instead of a close-up filter? Which macro lens do you use for photographing insects? Do you consider the working distance enough?

I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.

I wasn't at all happy with the image quality from a Canon 250D, both the one I have now and the one I had before but sent back because I thought it was faulty (but the later one was no better).

I wasn't happy either, so I rarely used it. Now I know that it is good with a lens up to 135mm.

Did you try your Marumi 72mm on your bridge cameras? Do you think that this filter is too heavy for the zoom mechanism?

I haven't tried it. I have 52mm Marumi 200 that I tested on my bridge cameras (like the Canon 250D, I wasn't happy with the image quality). I only got the 72mm relatively recently to see how it worked on a full frame 24-240 lens which is very big, heavy and beefy. I wouldn't want to try it on one of my bridge cameras for fear of breaking the zoom mechanism

Did you like the results from the full frame lens + close-up filter?

Thanks for your help! By the way, your pictures are amazing! Do you crop your images to increase depth of field or do you use focus stacking?

I only crop for composition reasons, not deep crops to get significantly greater depth of field. [NOTE for those who care about such things. I know, you can't increase depth of field by cropping. But you can get greater depth of field for a particular scene from a cropped image than from an uncropped image covering the same scene from closer in using the same aperture. It is in this sense that I sometimes refer to this as "crop for DOF".]

I capture images of live, active insects in the field, often as they are moving around, or engaged in some activity such as grooming or wrapping prey. Focus stacking is for the most part not a practical option for my subject matter.

I get greater depth of field than most people because I use smaller apertures than most people. This results in images that are very soft and lack fine detail because of the blurring effect of diffraction. I make careful use of post processing to try to get what I can from the images and I keep my outputs small at 1300 pixels high.

Are all of your flash diffusers on your flickr albums?

A lot of them are, possibly most of them. You would need to go to my Flickr collections and in each year look at the Phototechnics collection to find them. My images/albums/collections are not indexed in any way that allows me to find them easily for you I'm afraid.

Which diffuser would you use to photograph a ladybug? I would like to avoid a strong flash reflection.

We all would. It is very difficult to avoid flash reflections on reflective surfaces. Some ladybugs/ladybirds are more reflective than others, and some of my subjects are more reflective than the worst of them. After years of trying I have given up trying to arrange lighting that produces no flash reflection on highly reflective surface. When I get flash reflections that trouble my eye I tone down the reflections in post processing, either by local adjustments to lightness and/or highlights, or by using low opacity cloning to damp down the reflections. Or I give up on the image.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

RGBRGB wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

Yes the Hoya +4 72mm is a single-element close-up filter. So I think it won't be the right product for me. I think I'll buy a Raynox DCR-150. Can you get good results with the DCR-150 at any focal length like the DCR-250?

Yes. Until I switched to using a macro lens the year before last a Raynox 150 was my most used close-up lens for invertebrates for over 10 years. (I also had the Raynox 250, Canon 500D and 250D and the Marumi 200 and 330, but the Raynox 150 worked best for me.) I used the 150 with no problem on my bridge cameras at all focal lengths apart from the shortest focal lengths that produced vignetting.

Why did you start using a macro lens instead of a close-up filter?

So I could get greater depth of field, especially for small subjects such as springtails like this which are perhaps 2mm long.

Which macro lens do you use for photographing insects?

This is the setup I use.

Do you consider the working distance enough?

Yes.

I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.

I wasn't at all happy with the image quality from a Canon 250D, both the one I have now and the one I had before but sent back because I thought it was faulty (but the later one was no better).

I wasn't happy either, so I rarely used it. Now I know that it is good with a lens up to 135mm.

I don't remember what focal length I tested it with, but I wouldn't expect the problems I saw to go away with a different focal length.

Did you like the results from the full frame lens + close-up filter?

I'm afraid I haven't used it enough to know.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

You are very welcome. 

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

Yes the Hoya +4 72mm is a single-element close-up filter. So I think it won't be the right product for me. I think I'll buy a Raynox DCR-150. Can you get good results with the DCR-150 at any focal length like the DCR-250?

Yes. Until I switched to using a macro lens the year before last a Raynox 150 was my most used close-up lens for invertebrates for over 10 years. (I also had the Raynox 250, Canon 500D and 250D and the Marumi 200 and 330, but the Raynox 150 worked best for me.) I used the 150 with no problem on my bridge cameras at all focal lengths apart from the shortest focal lengths that produced vignetting.

Why did you start using a macro lens instead of a close-up filter?

So I could get greater depth of field, especially for small subjects such as springtails like this which are perhaps 2mm long.

Wow! Amazing shot!

Which macro lens do you use for photographing insects?

This is the setup I use.

Do you consider the working distance enough?

Yes.

I asked because I would usually get a shorter working distance with a DSLR than with a bridge camera + Raynox. The DSLR + lens is also much heavier and harder for me to take pictures without a tripod.

A couple of weeks ago I read that if you use a teleconverter, you can get more working distance. You have just showed me that! I will definitely try my teleconverter + extension tube (my lens is EF-S and it is not directly compatible with the Canon teleconverter).

I will also test my Raynox MSN202 with a much smaller aperture to get more DOF.

Thanks for inspiring me to try new things!

I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.

I wasn't at all happy with the image quality from a Canon 250D, both the one I have now and the one I had before but sent back because I thought it was faulty (but the later one was no better).

I wasn't happy either, so I rarely used it. Now I know that it is good with a lens up to 135mm.

I don't remember what focal length I tested it with, but I wouldn't expect the problems I saw to go away with a different focal length.

Did you like the results from the full frame lens + close-up filter?

I'm afraid I haven't used it enough to know.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

You are very welcome.

RGBRGB wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

Wow! Amazing shot!

Thank you. 

Which macro lens do you use for photographing insects?

This is the setup I use.

Do you consider the working distance enough?

Yes.

I asked because I would usually get a shorter working distance with a DSLR than with a bridge camera + Raynox. The DSLR + lens is also much heavier and harder for me to take pictures without a tripod.

A couple of weeks ago I read that if you use a teleconverter, you can get more working distance.

Adding a teleconverter does not alter the minimum focusing distance. So for example with my Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens, the working distance is around 72mm with the bare lens for its maximum magnification of 2X. With the pair of 2X teleconverters I get the same 72mm minimum working distance but with 8X magnification. At 2x magnification the working distance is around 170mm.

You have just showed me that! I will definitely try my teleconverter + extension tube (my lens is EF-S and it is not directly compatible with the Canon teleconverter).

That's a pity, because you will lose infinity focus. Just using a teleconverter you get the full range from minimum focusing distance out to infinity focus. That let me go for example from this

to this, just by turning the focus/magnification ring by 120 degrees or so (and turning the flash off).

I will also test my Raynox MSN202 with a much smaller aperture to get more DOF.

You can use small apertures to increase DOF, but there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

• The smaller the aperture, the greater the loss of fine detail from diffraction, the softer the image, and the more important post processing becomes.
  
• Macro lenses, extension tubes and teleconverters decrease effective aperture as magnification increases. This means for example that if you set the camera lens to f/22 and then shoot at 1:1, the effective aperture will be f/45. On the other hand close-up lenses don't decrease the effective aperture as magnification increases, so for example if you put your MSN-202 on a bridge camera and set the aperture to f/8, the effective aperture will still be f/8 even though you are getting all that magnification from the MSN-202. That is why I switched to using a macro lens with teleconverters after so many years using close-up lenses, because especially with small subjects I couldn't get enough DOF for my liking. Images like that springtail that you liked depend on using very small effective apertures (probably around f/100 for that springtail) and then using post processing to make the best I can of the very soft image that results from using such a small aperture. In contrast, the minimum effective aperture I could get with my close-up lens setups was around f/45 in full frame terms (and that was true whether I was using a close-up lens on bridge camera or on telezoom lenses on APS-C or MFT). f/45 gives a bit less than half the DOF of f/100.

Thanks for inspiring me to try new things!

Glad to be of help.

I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.

I wasn't at all happy with the image quality from a Canon 250D, both the one I have now and the one I had before but sent back because I thought it was faulty (but the later one was no better).

I wasn't happy either, so I rarely used it. Now I know that it is good with a lens up to 135mm.

I don't remember what focal length I tested it with, but I wouldn't expect the problems I saw to go away with a different focal length.

Did you like the results from the full frame lens + close-up filter?

I'm afraid I haven't used it enough to know.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

You are very welcome.

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

RGBRGB wrote:

Wow! Amazing shot!

Thank you.

Which macro lens do you use for photographing insects?

This is the setup I use.

Do you consider the working distance enough?

Yes.

I asked because I would usually get a shorter working distance with a DSLR than with a bridge camera + Raynox. The DSLR + lens is also much heavier and harder for me to take pictures without a tripod.

A couple of weeks ago I read that if you use a teleconverter, you can get more working distance.

Adding a teleconverter does not alter the minimum focusing distance. So for example with my Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens, the working distance is around 72mm with the bare lens for its maximum magnification of 2X. With the pair of 2X teleconverters I get the same 72mm minimum working distance but with 8X magnification. At 2x magnification the working distance is around 170mm.

It makes sense.

You have just showed me that! I will definitely try my teleconverter + extension tube (my lens is EF-S and it is not directly compatible with the Canon teleconverter).

That's a pity, because you will lose infinity focus. Just using a teleconverter you get the full range from minimum focusing distance out to infinity focus. That let me go for example from this

It's so versatile! Do you use only manual focus lenses? Do you use focus peaking to nail the focus?

Can you tell me your kenko teleconverter model? Do you know if the Kenko MC7 2.0 DGX is good?

to this, just by turning the focus/magnification ring by 120 degrees or so (and turning the flash off).

I will also test my Raynox MSN202 with a much smaller aperture to get more DOF.

You can use small apertures to increase DOF, but there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

• The smaller the aperture, the greater the loss of fine detail from diffraction, the softer the image, and the more important post processing becomes.

Can you tell me about your post processing workflow? In a nutshell, do you resize (shrink) the images, adjust contrast and add sharpening to the subject?

• Macro lenses, extension tubes and teleconverters decrease effective aperture as magnification increases. This means for example that if you set the camera lens to f/22 and then shoot at 1:1, the effective aperture will be f/45. On the other hand close-up lenses don't decrease the effective aperture as magnification increases, so for example if you put your MSN-202 on a bridge camera and set the aperture to f/8, the effective aperture will still be f/8 even though you are getting all that magnification from the MSN-202. That is why I switched to using a macro lens with teleconverters after so many years using close-up lenses, because especially with small subjects I couldn't get enough DOF for my liking. Images like that springtail that you liked depend on using very small effective apertures (probably around f/100 for that springtail) and then using post processing to make the best I can of the very soft image that results from using such a small aperture. In contrast, the minimum effective aperture I could get with my close-up lens setups was around f/45 in full frame terms (and that was true whether I was using a close-up lens on bridge camera or on telezoom lenses on APS-C or MFT). f/45 gives a bit less than half the DOF of f/100.

Thanks for your detailed explanation about the effective aperture. You just explained why the DOF was so shallow with the MSN-202. That's why I rarely used it. I will test it with another equipment that allows me to use smaller apertures.

• Thanks for inspiring me to try new things!

Glad to be of help.

I noticed that the Canon 250D does not work very well with focal lengths longer than 135mm.

I wasn't at all happy with the image quality from a Canon 250D, both the one I have now and the one I had before but sent back because I thought it was faulty (but the later one was no better).

I wasn't happy either, so I rarely used it. Now I know that it is good with a lens up to 135mm.

I don't remember what focal length I tested it with, but I wouldn't expect the problems I saw to go away with a different focal length.

Did you like the results from the full frame lens + close-up filter?

I'm afraid I haven't used it enough to know.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

You are very welcome.

RGBRGB wrote:

It's so versatile! Do you use only manual focus lenses?

For insects etc I used autofocus until around two years ago. Before then I was using close-up lenses on bridge cameras and on telezoom lenses on MFT or APS-C, and I preferred autofocus to manual focus almost all the time. Since then I have been using full frame setups which are manual focus only.

For flowers etc I have almost always used autofocus, and still do. (I use different kit for flowers etc.)

Do you use focus peaking to nail the focus?

For insects etc, when it works, yes. It depends on the scene. With some scenes I get no focus peaking signal.

For flowers etc, no.

Can you tell me your kenko teleconverter model?

Teleplus Pro 300. Now out of production I think. I think it has been replaced by the Teleplus HD Pro DGX.

Do you know if the Kenko MC7 2.0 DGX is good?

I'm afraid I don't know. In fact I don't even know if the one I use is good, or how it compares to other models and other brands. That may sound odd but because I use diffraction-dominated tiny apertures I never get to see what sharpness, clarity etc my cameras/lenses etc are capable of producing. Even the very best lenses etc would produce extremely soft images the way I use them.

Can you tell me about your post processing workflow? In a nutshell, do you resize (shrink) the images, adjust contrast and add sharpening to the subject?

My post processing workflow changes quite often - it is a permanent "work in progress". However, this post should give you a good idea of the way I go about it. That is for insects etc. I use more normal apertures for flowers etc and this means I can use a simpler workflow than for insects etc.

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge/experience with me! You were very patient to answer each question I made with lots of detail and examples. I learned a lot! You are an amazing person and photographer. THANK YOU!

RGBRGB wrote:

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge/experience with me! You were very patient to answer each question I made with lots of detail and examples. I learned a lot! You are an amazing person and photographer. THANK YOU!

Thank you.