John Gill |
Options for Close-Ups Hi, I was wondering which would be the better buy for close-up shots (besides a macro lens). I was thiking about getting several lens diopters or just an extension lens. Any suggestions? Thanks
|
|
|
||
doug Nelson |
Diopters work, if you don't mind fuzzy edges. If you center the subject, the edges will be out of focus, anyway. Another inexpensive method is to use extension tubes. Cheap ones work fine. Just use as much extension as you need. Once you've tried a macro lens, though, you won't be able to part with it.
|
|
|
||
John Gill |
Doug, Thanks for the quick response! I own a Minolta Maxxum 7. Do you know of any companies that make extension tubes for that camera?
|
|
|
||
doug Nelson |
Besides Minolta, maybe the after market guys like Kalimar or the Ritz camera people might have them. Check ebay.
|
|
|
||
Maynard McKillen |
Dear John: Diopters work well enough in certain circumstances. I use them at weddings to get a quick close up of the rings in a rose, and tend to use a middle-of-the-road f/stop so that I get a photo with very selective (limited) depth of field. In this situation, the fact that diopters lack the edge to edge sharpness of a macro lens is not a drawback. If I am copying old photos on a copystand, the Macro lens is superior to diopters. True macro lenses are routinely "flat field": they are engineered and constructed to minimize pincushion and barrel distortion, they retain corner to corner and edge to edge sharpness better than diopters, and also reject flare better than diopters. Extension tubes are a clean way to convert good prime lenses for close-up work. Be aware that beyond a certain amount of extension (and the exact amount is being discussed right now by other people at this site!) you have to compensate for loss of light. The same holds true if you use extension bellows, which are a less well known and more adjustable alternative to extension tubes.
|
|
|
||
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |