Screw on macro filters. Do they work good?

As the title ask, how are these filters.  Worth the buy?

If they are what you got, the will work! Good as a macro? Shoot I don't know. You could count the number of macro shot I've taken on one hand. But I did the three ring thing too, know only that I used them a time of two haven't a clue how they worked. Look at it this way. Your out putzing around and come on something that need's a macro. If all you have is the three ring set your gonna get a photo. If not, you gonna get nothing.

The only ones I think are worth the money are the Canon 500D filter, the rest are mostly junk. NO replacement for a dedicated macro lens though....

I would skip the added glass in front of your lens and buy some tubes on eBay, they are dirt cheap. I shoot full manual so learning your camera will be a must.

There are different types. Ernesto alluded to the Canon 500D... It is one of the better two element models. Nikon used to make 52mm & 62mm dual element close up lenses as well. You can only find them on the used market anymore. Canon's 500D is available in different filter sizes , unlike Nikon's... There are others out there as well like the Olympus MCON-35... The cheap ones you see sold usually as sets (+1,+2 +4 etc.) are crap. Sharp only in the center & loads of CA & distortion. Tubes are a better route, but the lesser cost ones won't relay any info from the lens & have to be used manually. The drawback with close up lenses & tubes is that you lose infinity focus & you are restricted to a certain magnification unless you add or subtract  tubes/filters... Raynox makes one of the better close up macro units, but it too suffers the same as the tubes/filters. A dedicated macro lens will allow for adjustable magnification & yet still retain infinity focus. Shorter focal lengths like 50-60 are good for static subjects. 90-105mm are best overall as they allow you to have a bit more distance between you & your subject. 150-200mm allow even more distance but are more unwieldy & expensive. I could fill several more pages on macro options (it's my niche, I own 6 different macro lenses from 55 to 180mm) as I have tried  (and own)them all

So much to process. thank you guys.  I was wondering about the Canon 500D, glad you mentioned it!  

They also have a 250D... There are a number of people who mount them on telephoto lenses in order to get insect (dragonfly) images without scaring off the insect. That isn't needed though as they often return to a perch... I have dragonfly images over o my Flickr site that were taken mere inches away from them.

Screamin Scott wrote: There are different types. Ernesto alluded to the Canon 500D... It is one of the better two element models. Nikon used to make 52mm & 62mm dual element close up lenses as well. You can only find them on the used market anymore. Canon's 500D is available in different filter sizes , unlike Nikon's... There are others out there as well like the Olympus MCON-35... The cheap ones you see sold usually as sets (+1,+2 +4 etc.) are crap. Sharp only in the center & loads of CA & distortion. Tubes are a better route, but the lesser cost ones won't relay any info from the lens & have to be used manually. The drawback with close up lenses & tubes is that you lose infinity focus & you are restricted to a certain magnification unless you add or subtract  tubes/filters... Raynox makes one of the better close up macro units, but it too suffers the same as the tubes/filters. A dedicated macro lens will allow for adjustable magnification & yet still retain infinity focus. Shorter focal lengths like 50-60 are good for static subjects. 90-105mm are best overall as they allow you to have a bit more distance between you & your subject. 150-200mm allow even more distance but are more unwieldy & expensive. I could fill several more pages on macro options (it's my niche, I own 6 different macro lenses from 55 to 180mm) as I have tried  (and own)them all

Infinity focus is a nonfactor when shooting macro. We can talk about light diffraction also when adding more glass to the front of your lens. The tech stuff could be debated until someone yells uncle. The idea is getting a good, usable image, and I would refer anyone to tubes before the magnification glass. Yes, with tubes you will have to learn how to shoot in manual and you will have to learn good focus, I would also suggest a focusing rail to make the process less painful. They sell Chinese made rails on eBay for 25.00 USD. The payoff of learning how to use your camera like this is priceless. On the other hand, if your just looking for an easy way to get to macro and really have no desire to learn about your camera, then by all means use the magnification glass, it's cheap and painless.

Just another tidbit of info.... If you are not going to be making large prints nor pixel peep but only show the images online. The cheapos may suffice for your needs. They will show lesser IQ when enlarged (or cropped), especially towards the edges.... Stay away from zooms with macro in the title as most are not true flat field macro capable lenses. They have too many compromises built in

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Screamin Scott wrote: There are different types. Ernesto alluded to the Canon 500D... It is one of the better two element models. Nikon used to make 52mm & 62mm dual element close up lenses as well. You can only find them on the used market anymore. Canon's 500D is available in different filter sizes , unlike Nikon's... There are others out there as well like the Olympus MCON-35... The cheap ones you see sold usually as sets (+1,+2 +4 etc.) are crap. Sharp only in the center & loads of CA & distortion. Tubes are a better route, but the lesser cost ones won't relay any info from the lens & have to be used manually. The drawback with close up lenses & tubes is that you lose infinity focus & you are restricted to a certain magnification unless you add or subtract  tubes/filters... Raynox makes one of the better close up macro units, but it too suffers the same as the tubes/filters. A dedicated macro lens will allow for adjustable magnification & yet still retain infinity focus. Shorter focal lengths like 50-60 are good for static subjects. 90-105mm are best overall as they allow you to have a bit more distance between you & your subject. 150-200mm allow even more distance but are more unwieldy & expensive. I could fill several more pages on macro options (it's my niche, I own 6 different macro lenses from 55 to 180mm) as I have tried  (and own)them all

Infinity focus is a nonfactor when shooting macro. We can talk about light diffraction also when adding more glass to the front of your lens. The tech stuff could be debated until someone yells uncle. The idea is getting a good, usable image, and I would refer anyone to tubes before the magnification glass. Yes, with tubes you will have to learn how to shoot in manual and you will have to learn good focus, I would also suggest a focusing rail to make the process less painful. They sell Chinese made rails on eBay for 25.00 USD. The payoff of learning how to use your camera like this is priceless.

So, if you see a Fox or another animal past the reach of focus of the lens with the tube on it, how do you propose to capture it's image ?.... By the time you remove the tube, the opportunity may well be gone. With a true macro lens that retains infinity focus, this isn't a problem... While I have & use a focus rail, I only do so when stacking images. Most all of my macro is done hand held using either a ring light or softbox attached to a speedlight.. The short duration of the flash stops any motion, be it my own or my subjects & the additional light allows me to stop down my lens for added DOF (which is pitifully little when shooting macro). I also shoot macro entirely in manual, camera, lens & flash... I have used tubes to increase the magnification of my macro lenses, but standard lenses are not flat field designs & thus I don't use them as the IQ falls off towards the edges...That's not to say that one shouldn't use tubes on standard lenses, it's just that best results are gotten with dedicated gear. Diffraction is tied to aperture, not glass surfaces...See the attached link...

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Have one and honestly haven't used it in a long time.  For me, I never got it.  Perhaps I'm just not as big of a macro photographer as many of you.  

A word of caution in regards to a fleabay 25 dollar rail...Don't. Unless you're looking for frustration and poor results, leave the "cheap" stuff alone. The rail is ok advice, but there are better options. Also, if you get hooked on macro, you'll end up with more than one lens, and certainly a set of tubes. Again. DON'T go cheap, get a good set......

Screamin Scott wrote:

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Screamin Scott wrote: There are different types. Ernesto alluded to the Canon 500D... It is one of the better two element models. Nikon used to make 52mm & 62mm dual element close up lenses as well. You can only find them on the used market anymore. Canon's 500D is available in different filter sizes , unlike Nikon's... There are others out there as well like the Olympus MCON-35... The cheap ones you see sold usually as sets (+1,+2 +4 etc.) are crap. Sharp only in the center & loads of CA & distortion. Tubes are a better route, but the lesser cost ones won't relay any info from the lens & have to be used manually. The drawback with close up lenses & tubes is that you lose infinity focus & you are restricted to a certain magnification unless you add or subtract  tubes/filters... Raynox makes one of the better close up macro units, but it too suffers the same as the tubes/filters. A dedicated macro lens will allow for adjustable magnification & yet still retain infinity focus. Shorter focal lengths like 50-60 are good for static subjects. 90-105mm are best overall as they allow you to have a bit more distance between you & your subject. 150-200mm allow even more distance but are more unwieldy & expensive. I could fill several more pages on macro options (it's my niche, I own 6 different macro lenses from 55 to 180mm) as I have tried  (and own)them all

Infinity focus is a nonfactor when shooting macro. We can talk about light diffraction also when adding more glass to the front of your lens. The tech stuff could be debated until someone yells uncle. The idea is getting a good, usable image, and I would refer anyone to tubes before the magnification glass. Yes, with tubes you will have to learn how to shoot in manual and you will have to learn good focus, I would also suggest a focusing rail to make the process less painful. They sell Chinese made rails on eBay for 25.00 USD. The payoff of learning how to use your camera like this is priceless.

So, if you see a Fox or another animal past the reach of focus of the lens with the tube on it, how do you propose to capture it's image ?.... By the time you remove the tube, the opportunity may well be gone. With a true macro lens that retains infinity focus, this isn't a problem... While I have & use a focus rail, I only do so when stacking images. Most all of my macro is done hand held using either a ring light or softbox attached to a speedlight.. The short duration of the flash stops any motion, be it my own or my subjects & the additional light allows me to stop down my lens for added DOF (which is pitifully little when shooting macro). I also shoot macro entirely in manual, camera, lens & flash... I have used tubes to increase the magnification of my macro lenses, but standard lenses are not flat field designs & thus I don't use them as the IQ falls off towards the edges...That's not to say that one shouldn't use tubes on standard lenses, it's just that best results are gotten with dedicated gear. Diffraction is tied to aperture, not glass surfaces...See the attached link...

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I find this statement completely off target, why in the hell would anyone be shooting macro then all of a sudden be interested in a fox? What in the hell are you talking about? You go into the field with the purpose of shooting macro not wildlife, if you want to shoot wildlife that's a topic for another thread. We are talking macro, try to stay on subject. Macro photography does not require infinity focus. I'm not here to argue, if you want to talk lens specs or compare lens specs, that's an entirely different subject, we are talking about getting a usable image. FOCUS GRASSHOPPER!

The fundamental process at work in a rainbow is refraction - the "bending" of light. Light bends - or more accurately, changes directions -- when it travels from one medium to another. This happens because light travels at different speeds in different mediums.
When you add more glass to the front of your lens, what do you think happens? It's not just an aperture causing this.  A beam of light turns when it enters a glass prism. This is a simplification, but think about it this way: One side of the light wave slows down before the other, so the beam turns at the boundary between the air and the glass (some of the light actually reflects off the prism surface, but most passes through). The light turns again when it exits the prism, because one side of it speeds up before the other.In addition to bending light as a whole, a prism separates white light into its component colors. Different colors of light have different frequencies, which causes them to travel at different speeds when they move through matter.
A color that travels more slowly in glass will bend more sharply when it passes from air to glass, because the speed difference is more severe. A color that moves more quickly in glass won't slow down as much, so it will bend less sharply. In this way, the colors that make up white light are separated according to frequency when they pass through glass. If the glass bends the light twice, as in a prism, you can see the separated colors more easily. This is called dispersion.

If your going to post a link about refraction at least understand the full scope of the subject.

+1 that infinity focus doesn't matter. I'm not real sure why that has been brought up. Macro is macro, and usually implies reasonably close proximity, does it not?

That said, save your money and get a Sigma 50mm Macro lens for $300, and some tubes. Or use tubes on a longer lens so you don't have to be quite so close to your subject.

In other words: use tubes. They're cheap, the Vivitars work (on Nikon) and make it easy to figure out what to do.

Let's get ridiculous here, yeah, the subject is macro, but the thrust of the discussion was what type of equipment to use more so than just macro itself... Are you both saying that if you are out shooting one type of photography and an opportunity presents itself of a different type of shooting, that you would pass and possibly miss a never to be repeated opportunity? ?.... I think not. If so then why bother ? When I shoot macro, I'm not oblivious to any other photo ops that may present itself. I'm not narrow minded like that..... Yeah, tubes are cheaper than a true macro lens. I never said they weren't. That said, they involve compromises that a dedicated macro lens does not... The article  posted to isn't about refraction, but diffraction & the fact that it is influenced by the aperture, not the number of glass surfaces as you stated...

Plus, it still doesn't change the fact that a true macro lens has an adjustable magnification ratio. With tubes, the only way it really changes is to add or subtract tubes. In real world shooting, that can mean missed shots. Ok, another example & this one doesn't invovle infinity focus either. You are shooting an insects at life size & a much larger insect is spotted. Say like a large butterfly or Dragonfly. With tubes, you would have to change out the tubes in order to capture the entire insect. With a dedicated macro lens, it's just a matter of turning the focus ring.... That a better example for you ?