Close-up filters

NTP66

NTP66

New member
Out of curiosity, does anyone use these in lieu of a true macro lens? If so, got any shots you can share?

I recently upgraded to a DSLR, and would like to take some closer shots of my tank, but really don't want to drop the money on a macro lens; I just wouldn't use it enough to justify the cost.
 
Personally, I've never used them. I would think though it would be better to look into extension tubes. I also don't know what lens but I'm guessing a kit lens since they normally gear the filter sizes to match them. The thing is with filters, you're putting cheep glass on top of average glass. With extension tubes there is no glass. The tube moves the lens further away from the camera body to allow it to focus closer.

Honestly though, look for a used macro lens. I bought a Sigma 50mm off ebay for under a hundred bucks. While not the best, it will blow away anything you put together.

Where are you in Pa???
 
I thought about extension tubes, too, but the Kenko ones I was looking out were kind of pricey, too. I hadn't looked for a 50mm macro, just some 90/100 ones, so maybe I should expand my search?

I bought a D5200 body, knowing that I didn't want a kit lens. As of right now, my main lens is a Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G, which I really like. Pretty sharp throughout, and I got it for a steal on eBay. I also have a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G prime and just picked up a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD. I imagine that someday I'll upgrade to some nicer glass, but I think I'll be able to grow with the stuff I've got now. I've been taking some DSLR classes in my spare time to make this a worthwhile hobby, too.

I'm from Pittsburgh (most of my family is currently in the Irwin area), but live in the Philly suburbs. It blows out here. :)
 
The 50mm wouldn't AF on your body, but it's a very sharp and fast lens. The 90/105 gives you more working room, but it has a closer focusing distance. I have and use the 50 and the 105.

I'm in New Ken. When my work schedule gets better, we should meet up.
 
Personally, look into a new or used D300, or a used D90 I have a couple 200's and the 300 is what my next one will be. If you want video, get the 90 or the 300s. There's also the D7000, but if I remember right, it's more a consumer style body, so I'd imagine the build quality isn't quite as good as the 300. Those all have the screw drive, so older and off brand lenses will all AF fine. They all also have the CMOS sensor so ISO noise isn't as bad as my 200. I rarely go above 400 on my 200 because it has the old CCD.
 
Either I didn't look hard enough, or there are just more macro lenses available on eBay right now. I see a Tamron 90mm f/2.5 for $114, and a few Sigma 28-90mm macros for under $100. I think I'd probably want to stay with a prime for this, though, no?

I'll definitely let you know. You're only about 35 minutes from where I usually am when I make trips out there.
 
Other than a consumer feel and lack of AF drive, what makes the 3200 or 5200 undesirable, seeing they have twice the resolution of the D300?
 
To that end... I just did some reading and the newer 7100 looks very compelling other than the smallish buffer for such a high MP camera.
 
NTP66 said:
Out of curiosity, does anyone use these in lieu of a true macro lens? If so, got any shots you can share?

I recently upgraded to a DSLR, and would like to take some closer shots of my tank, but really don't want to drop the money on a macro lens; I just wouldn't use it enough to justify the cost.
Click to expand...

I’m a total novice in reef keeping, but I’ve been shooting for about 15 years so maybe I can help.

If you want to get by on the cheap and play around, a set of close-up lens filters is the way to go. A set of Hoya lenses with a 67mm thread (same as your 16-85) run about $50. Image quality won’t be on par with a proper macro lens, but they certainly work, and you will learn a great deal in the process. Extension tubes are better, but they're more more expensive and will increase your effective f-stop. On the other hand, even an inexpensive macro lens from one of the 3rd party manufacturers is still going to be an impressively sharp, well-corrected lens. Virtually all macro lenses are excellent performers.

Regarding the D300 suggestion, I would personally avoid it and the D90 unless they the offer is too good to pass up. I still have a D300, but only my D700 sees use any more. It's a fine camera and is built to a high standard, but its sensor technology is dated compared to even modern prosumer offerings. Where the D300 (and its sister the D90) fall short, is that they produce quite a bit of noise in the blue channel, even at base ISO. In my landscape work, it became obvious in large patches of sky, and given the blue spectral tendencies of reef tank lighting, I think the problem might be evident there as well. The current crop of prosumer bodies are not as well built and most aren't compatible with "legacy" glass (many of those lenses are superb even by modern standards), but they outperform the D300 in terms of imaging.
 
You caught onto part of it by mentioning the buffer. I tend to shoot a few frames per second when out there. It begins to create a lag of sorts if i rattle off 20 shots in a few seconds. I also don't think the smaller bodies can shoot 5 frames per second. The other thing for me is most of what I shoot is in the boonies. I've had my cameras out in rain storms and when dust is flying around with no problems. Also like you said, the feel. Putting a 70-200 2.8 or a 300 f4 on one of the smaller bodies feels really out of balance. It won't affect much if you are always on a pod of some sort, but always being in the woods, I don't have time or always have space to use one. I'm almost always free hand.

I haven't seen or used a 7100 yet, but I did use a 7000 once. It's not bad. I didn't care for the weight as it's lighter than I'm used to, but I mentioned it above because it's a fairly capable camera. The 3000 and 5000 series are really just to small for my hands. I'm so used to the controls on the 200, I have trouble finding them on the smaller bodies. On the larger bodies it's second nature and I don't even look. There's really nothing wrong with any of them though.
 
I tend to do this... and I hate it.

I have a D50, so ANYTHING will be a step up. But looking at the 300s and the cost it lacks a lot that the 7100 has. So I am looking at the 7100 and at that point am thinking why not a refurb 600 or 800. You get most of what the 7100 has but with a pro body and FX format. So a used 600 costs what a new 7100 costs... Wow this is complicated.
 
Clamagore said:
Regarding the D300 suggestion, I would personally avoid it and the D90 unless they the offer is too good to pass up. I still have a D300, but only my D700 sees use any more. It's a fine camera and is built to a high standard, but its sensor technology is dated compared to even modern prosumer offerings. Where the D300 (and its sister the D90) fall short, is that they produce quite a bit of noise in the blue channel, even at base ISO. In my landscape work, it became obvious in large patches of sky, and given the blue spectral tendencies of reef tank lighting, I think the problem might be evident there as well. The current crop of prosumer bodies are not as well built and most aren't compatible with "legacy" glass (many of those lenses are superb even by modern standards), but they outperform the D300 in terms of imaging.
Click to expand...

I do understand what you are saying, but if you read my post above, you'll understand why I've said what I did. Also about the blue noise, this can be adjusted for when shooting if you pay attention and know how to use the camera, filters and software available. I don't shoot landscapes on a normal basis, but I do shoot tanks and don't have any trouble. I can understand the 700 being better for shooting landscapes, it being FF and all. It's also quite a bit more than a 300 or a 90. It won't work well for me though. A crop body gives me more advantages.
 
BeanAnimal said:
Wow this is complicated.
Click to expand...

Yep!!!! I shoot mainly macro. The 200 and 300 being crop bodies give me a better working area. You can shoot crop on the FF bodies but it does reduce the available mp as it uses a smaller portion of the sensor. Ends up putting you at or below the others. The thing for me as I've said is the feel. I am very used to the bodies I have. I also don't use the battery backs because it changes the feel. I do have them, but it's easier to stick a couple extra batteries in my pocket. Using a FF body would be like putting the battery pack on.
 
NTP66 said:
Sigma 28-90mm macro
Click to expand...

So I wanted to tell you a little about that lens. First it is not a "true" macro. A true macro will give you 1:1 magnification at it's given focal length. The Sigma is about 1:2.3 at 90mm with the macro switch in the macro position. With that being said, with a set of extension tubes, it really ain't bad. I've even used it with the cheep 10 dollar ones without electronics with good results. I've had one since as far back as I can remember and still use it.

You can see some of my stuff here.
 
Last edited:
Looks like I've got more research to do. On top of the macro lens, I'm thinking about investing in a shoe mount flash, but not really sure if it's worth it at the moment. I know the pop-up flash on the D5200 is okay, but I've got a feeling that buying a larger flash that I could swivel would make a world of difference for indoor pictures of the family. Of course, I'm trying to go the cheaper route here, too, and have been staring at Yongnuo flashes that support iTTL...

Edit: BTW, you've got some really nice gear - especially that 24-70. I saw one not too long ago for $800 in great condition, and had I known how much it is retail, would have bought it. Whoops.
 
NTP66 said:
especially that 24-70. I saw one not too long ago for $800 in great condition, and had I known how much it is retail, would have bought it. Whoops.
Click to expand...

If I saw one out there for that price, I'd pick it up as an investment. I think it was about 1900 from B&H new when I got mine. While a little heavy for the range, IMHO one of the best lenses Nikon has made in a long time.
 
NTP66 said:
I know the pop-up flash on the D5200 is okay, but I've got a feeling that buying a larger flash that I could swivel would make a world of difference for indoor pictures of the family. Of course, I'm trying to go the cheaper route here, too, and have been staring at Yongnuo flashes that support iTTL...
Click to expand...

Look into your flash menus and see if you have the option for Remote Commander in them. This allows you to control some speedlights from the camera body with the pop-up flash. This allows you to put the flash anywhere you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raidendex
Fixing White Balance
Replies
2
Views
104
wvned
wvned
T
Sump mod for roller mat filter ? How to ?
Replies
7
Views
167
griss
griss
thefishyboy
Bubble magus akimmer
Replies
4
Views
149
griss
griss
five.five-six
Need help! How do I cut up thick SPS colonies in the tank?
2
Replies
33
Views
890
five.five-six
five.five-six
OrdinaryGirl
My 13.5 build - a wee reefie
Replies
15
Views
777
OrdinaryGirl
OrdinaryGirl
Back
Top