Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Macro photography with a zoom plus a close-up lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:01 pm    Post subject: Macro photography with a zoom plus a close-up lens Reply with quote

First a 50 million dollar question:
How can an animal stop a machine that weighs 50 million times its own weight?

continuing...

Most photographers think that serious macro photography requires a dedicated macro lens. There is no doubt that a dedicated macro lens is very good solution, but there are alternatives for doing macro photography that under certain conditions are better than a dedicated macro lens! In particular, I'm talking about using an achromatic close-up lens with a telephoto zoom lens.

Below the links to an article by Marco Cavina who tested the performance of a Nikon 80-200mm F4.5 zoom lens with a Sigma achromatic close-up:

original:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Achromatic_close-up_lens/00_pag.htm

translation:
http://translate.google.com.br/translate?hl=pt-BR&sl=it&tl=en&u=http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Achromatic_close-up_lens/00_pag.htm&sandbox=0&usg=ALkJrhgfhXvSqSBWL5aynUtcUBRIhBO8Nw

For good results, the zoom lens does not need to be "macro" zoom. The most important is that it must be well corrected for infinity. The idea is to place the object to be photographed at focal point of the lens close-up, so that the image goes to infinity. The zoom lens then "sees" the image at infinity and focuses it on the sensor or film. Simple, isn't it?

Of course, the quality of the result depends heavily on the quality of the zoom and close-up lens. It is essential, for example, the use of an achromatic close-up lens. Forget the single-element close-up lenses made in China by Vivitar, Hoya, etc., which are sold in sets of 3 or 4.

The magnification that is achieved is given by:

Magnification = (focal length of the zoom lens) / (focal length of the close-up lens)

For example, with a 80-200 zoom lens and a close-up lens of 5 diopters, the magnification can be varied between 0.4x (1: 2.5) and 1X (1: 1).


A practical application
I'll tell you a little secret: for macro photography a large sensor has little or no advantage over a small sensor. A compact camera can be a fabulous solution for photographing small objects.

In the application which I will present, I used a FZ200 camera to record the damage on an electronic printed-circuit board caused by the excrements of an insect which, I believe, was an ant.

The FZ200 zoom lens is 25-600 equiv. with constant maximum aperture F2.8. The FZ200 is an autofocus camera, but the lens can be used in manual mode, which qualifies it to be discussed in this forum. Anyway, what matters is the idea, which can be applied equally to a zoom lens with manual or auto focus.

With an achromatic close-up lens of +4 diopters, the equivalent magnification can be varied from 0.1X to 2.4X. The variation of magnification is therefore 24 times! In comparison, the Vivitar 90-180mm, a venerable macro zoom lens for 35mm, allows a variation of magnification of only 2 times. Last but not least, one of the strong points of doing macro with the FZ200 and an achromatic close-pus is the FZ200 excellent image stabilization system.

The photo below shows the damaged region of the PCB. The area shown is 55 x 42 mm. The equivalent magnification is about 0.65X.
The damaged transistor is the small black rectangle marked with a yellow circle. This transistor is about 3mm long.

Damaged PCB (55 x 42mm area shown):


The picture below shows in detail the damaged transistor. The area shown has dimensions 8 x 6 mm, which corresponds to an equivalent magnification of 4.5X. The brown-orange parts are the transistor terminal, which was completely corroded by the insect excrements.
The following picture is a 100% crop to show the level of detail that can be captured with the setup. I added a pink line of width 0.01mm to show that the photograph captured details of 3 to 5 microns.


Damaged transitor (8 x 6mm area shown):



100% crop - pink line width = 0.01mm:



Question: How can an animal stop a machine that weighs 50 million times its own weight?
Answer: An ant with weight of 0.001g can stop a machine of 50 kg by shitting on the transistor
on the electronic circuit board that controls the motor of the machine. LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing


Well, enough of craps made by insects... Very Happy
Let's see now something nicer but more common: a small flower. The picture below was shot with equivalent magnification of 1:1, equivalent focal length was 263mm, the shutter speed was 1/30s and the camera was hand held. It would be very difficult to take a picture under the same conditions with a macro lens for 35mm.



PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting post and topic.
I am not sure but I have the feeling that the droppings look large for than an ant?

I read that some specific combinations of zoom lenses and double close up lenses can yield amazingly good results.
However cheaper zoom lenses and cheaper single close up lenses can combine in the worst case to quite bad quality.

I think one can find many examples for both cases on the net (bad example http://timtrott.co.uk/closeup-filter-vs-macro-lens/)

So every combination of zoom and close up lens has to be evaluated individually.

I think your combination works very well.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of my old flickr contacts used a diopter on a bridge camera of some sort with astonishing results. I've got a few diopters, but never really tried them, certainly not on a zoom lens. A project for a rainy day perhaps?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bernhardas wrote:
Very interesting post and topic.
I am not sure but I have the feeling that the droppings look large for than an ant?

I read that some specific combinations of zoom lenses and double close up lenses can yield amazingly good results.
However cheaper zoom lenses and cheaper single close up lenses can combine in the worst case to quite bad quality.

I think one can find many examples for both cases on the net (bad example http://timtrott.co.uk/closeup-filter-vs-macro-lens/)

So every combination of zoom and close up lens has to be evaluated individually.

I think your combination works very well.


I have the set of Hoya lenses cited in the link!

Those close-up lenses with just one element are very cheap, but I found out that their performances are horrible. I do not recommend them. The difference between an achromatic lens with a cemented pair and a lens with only one element is like the difference between day and night.

In my experience, only two conditions are necessary to obtain high quality results:
1) a lens (zoom or prime) with excellent performance for infinity
2) an achromatic close-up lens (cemented optical pair)

Some time ago I did some tests of the FZ200 working with single-element close-up lenses (Hoya) and with an achromatic close-up lens (Sigma Life Size). The pictures below are from that test. The equivalent magnification used was approximately 1.9:1, which is considerably beyond the magnification 1:1 reached by most macro lens.


FZ200 at F2.8 plus 3 stacked Hoya close-up lenses - area covered: 18 x 13.5mm - full image:



FZ200 at F2.8 plus Sigma Life Size achromatic close-up lens - area covered: 20 x 15mm - full image:



FZ200 at F2.8 plus Sigma Life Size achromatic close-up lens - 100% crop:



FZ200 at F5.6 plus Sigma Life Size achromatic close-up lens - 100% crop:



FZ200 at F5.6 plus Sigma Life Size achromatic close-up lens - 200% crop:



Comments:
1. The performance with the stack of Hoya lenses (+4 +2 and +1) is reasonable in the center, but awful at the edges and corners. It was not shown, but even with small apertures the performance is not satisfactory.

2. The performance with the lens achromatic close-up is excellent in the center and quite satisfactory at the edges and corners already with aperture F2.8 (wide open). At aperture F5.6 the definition gets uniformly good across the field. The red dots have diameter of approximately 0.1mm, which gives an idea of the optical magnification.

3. The white lines of the crosses in the last picture have a width of approximately 0.1mm. From the size of the details that can be seen, we can say that the resolution appears to be better than 10 microns.


Last edited by Gerald on Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:28 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
One of my old flickr contacts used a diopter on a bridge camera of some sort with astonishing results. I've got a few diopters, but never really tried them, certainly not on a zoom lens. A project for a rainy day perhaps?

I strongly encourage you to try your close-up lenses. Smile
But if they are not achromatic lenses, do not expect good result (see my previous post). Sad

Those super-zoom cameras are diabolically efficient for macro and super-telephoto photography. The FZ200 in particular is super light compared to a DLSR, has excellent image stabilization, and the photo quality is equal or better than what I could achieve with 35mm film a few years ago. The only downside of the small format is that it is not easy to get the shallow depth of field typical of 35mm.

Here they use the expression (translated literally) "papaya with sugar" to say that something is simple, easy and agreeable to do. Roughly equivalent to "piece of cake".

As taking pictures with the FZ200 is "papaya with sugar", here's a picture taken with the FZ200 of a papaya tree in the backyard of my mother: Very Happy



PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice papaya picture Gerald.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Achromat in this technique is used as the "Objective" and Zoom used as the "Tube" lens in a similar way that infinity-corrected microscopes operate. From this perspective the most reproducible results are obtained by using an objective that is also corrected for infinity and is flat-field on the object side. This means most any Prime photographic lens should work well! Using a reversed Prime on a forward Prime or Zoom is called "Lens Stacking". I've personally found that the best objectives for this sort of work are reversed enlarging lenses up to around 2:1-3:1, and proper microscope objectives (infinity corrected) at 4:1 and beyond. When you set up your photomacrographic system this way, you are exactly mimicking an infinity-corrected microscope and can obtain world-class results.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my experience the best results are obtained by using high quality achromats with the lenses they were designed for.
For instance, my Leica Elpro acrhromats + Summicron 50mm or Elmarit 90mm are slightly better then my Sigma achromats + other lenses combinations.
Anyway, using achromats with normal or small tele lenses for close-ups and quick macros is very handy:
- you don't have to carry another lens (the achromat is the size of a filter);
- you don't loos the AF(if used with AF lenses);
- the IQ is quite good in most situations.
That's what I usually carry in my bag.
Of course, for critical work a dedicated and high quality macro lens is the best.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bernhardas wrote:
So in your experience every decent zoom works well with an achromatic lens.

You have a Tokina AT-X 50-250mm F4-5.6, don't you? Try it with an achromatic close-up lens and I bet you'll like the results.


sichko wrote:
Nice papaya picture Gerald.

Thank you, John!
Do you know that there are three varieties of papaya: the male, the female and the hermaphrodite?
https://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120719083425AAsNkYr

I prefer the female. Laughing Laughing Laughing




Ray Parkhurst wrote:
The Achromat in this technique is used as the "Objective" and Zoom used as the "Tube" lens in a similar way that infinity-corrected microscopes operate. From this perspective the most reproducible results are obtained by using an objective that is also corrected for infinity and is flat-field on the object side. This means most any Prime photographic lens should work well! Using a reversed Prime on a forward Prime or Zoom is called "Lens Stacking". I've personally found that the best objectives for this sort of work are reversed enlarging lenses up to around 2:1-3:1, and proper microscope objectives (infinity corrected) at 4:1 and beyond. When you set up your photomacrographic system this way, you are exactly mimicking an infinity-corrected microscope and can obtain world-class results.

Exactly, Ray! I could not put it better.
The use of a photographic lens mounted in reverse as a close-up lens for the main lens is a very effective trick, particularly for reproduction ratios greater than 1:1. Raynox is a company that produces various accessories based on that idea, but I have no experience with their products.



dan_ wrote:
For instance, my Leica Elpro acrhromats + Summicron 50mm or Elmarit 90mm are slightly better then my Sigma achromats + other lenses combinations.

Could you please elaborate more?
I don't have any Elpro lens yet, but I have two Sigma Achromatic of 1.6 diopters and a Sigma Life Size of 4 diopters. I also did some tests with the objective lens of an old prismatic binoculars, and the results were excellent.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a general rule of thumb

For dioptre > 1 achromat is preferred

Your Hoya stack proves this rule


PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
Could you please elaborate more?


I've made a quick test to better show what I wanted to say. The lens used in the test is a Summicron-R 50mm with both Sigma +1,6 diopters and Elpro VIIA (+1,66 diopters). The camera is a Sony NEX-7 and the diaphragm was set to f/2.8.

The whole 24 megapixels image:




And the 100% crops of the outlined region with both Achromatic lenses:


As you can see both Achromatic lenses are excellent but the Elpro is slightly better, though by a small margin.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Dan, for your effort to answer my question. Very Happy

The picture taken with the Elpro is indeed slightly sharper. However, I wonder what was the reason for that. The obvious explanation is that the Elpro lens is really the better lens, and the matter is closed. After all, Leica is an extremely respected name in photographic optics. Nonetheless, I tend to think that nowadays the design of an achromatic doublet is something very simple, so I do not believe that anyone could design an achromatic doublet significantly better than other modern designs.

I will dare to think about other possibilities... Idea

One possibility is that there was a very minute difference in focus between the two pictures. Please do not think I doubt your ability to focus a lens, but even when I use the A99 viewfinder 11.7x magnification, many times I'm in doubt if I really nailed the focus. Embarassed

Another possibility, perhaps more likely, is that the achromatic lenses were working in different conditions for which they were designed.

In the pictures of the coin the focusing distance was probably set to about 50cm. The Sigma Achromatic was designed to work with a Sigma zoom lens whose minimum focusing distance was 150cm. This means the Sigma Achromatic on the Summicron-R 50mm was very far from its ideal condition. In contrast, the Elpro VIIa was designed to work, among other lenses, with the Summicron-R 90mm F2, whose minimum focal distance is only 68 cm. In the picture of the coin, the Elpro was then working much closer to the condition for which it was designed, what would explain the greater picture quality compared to the Sigma Achromatic.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Few years ago, when I first tested the 2 achromatic lenses against each other, I've asked myself the same question. Of course, a hair difference in focus was my first suspicion and, as one can imagine, I did more tests. I've tested them at different focusing distances, too. All the tests lead, more or less, to the same conclusion as the one presented here. As you pointed out, a better design with such simple optics is unlikely.
I tend to consider that the difference between the 2 is due to Leica's better manufacture, better glass, lower tolerances and better quality control. After all that's why you pay more for Leica (...and, of course, for the red dot Laughing ).


PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been thinking about the tests done by Dan and I became convinced that the differences in the results did not depend on the close-up lenses used in his test. I'll try to explain.

The camera lens was a 50mm lens, which has optical power of 20 diopters. The close-up lenses used had optical powers of 1.6 diopters, which is more than twelve times smaller than the optical power of the camera lens. Under these conditions it is expected that the aberrations of the close-up lens are insignificant relative to those of the camera lens and, therefore, the performance should not depend on the particular close-up lens used. It is assumed, of course, that the close-up lens used is of decent quality. As far as I know, virtually all achromatic close-up lenses are of good quality.

Viewed another way, the relative aperture of the camera lens was F2.8, so the absolute aperture was 50 / 2.8 = 17.9mm. A close-up lens of 1.6 diopter has a focal length of 625mm, so if the close-up lens itself is working with an absolute opening 17.9mm (the same of the camera lens), the relative aperture of the close-up lens is equal to 625/17.9 = F35. An aperture of F35 is a very small aperture and the aberrations should be negligible. There are many commercial achromatic doublets with aperture as large as F6.5 that the manufacturers claim they are limited by diffraction. One example:

http://www.canadiantelescopes.com/Shop-By-Brand/Telescopes_11/Explore-Scientific-102MM-F-6-5-Achromatic-doublet-refractor-telescope.html#.U_jlQWp0y1s

The spherical aberration of a lens varies with the inverse of the cube of the relative aperture. This means that an achromatic doublet at F35 has an amount of spherical aberration which is 56 times smaller than the same doublet working at F6.5! There should be little doubt that the performance of any decent achromatic doublet at F35 is diffraction-limited, given the fact that the aberrations can be ignored.

Leaving the theory, and going to practice, I will show now that the resolution of a 50mm camera lens plus a 1.6 diopters achromatic close-up lens depends basically on the performance of the camera lens and the sensor, and virtually nothing of the performance of the close-up lens. It will be clear in the end that the intrinsic resolution of the close-up lens is overwhelmingly greater than the camera lens plus the sensor.

First, let's take a look at the figure below, which shows the role of the close-up lens:



The camera lens does not "see" the physical object directly, but only the image of the object produced by the close-up lens. The image is at a greater distance, and is larger than the object.

If we think in terms of resolution, any physical the object has infinite resolution but its image has finite resolution, which is given by the characteristics of the close-up lens. In particular, for a diffraction limited lens at F35, the minor details that could be resolved have dimensions of the order of 18 microns, which is the diameter of the Airy disk for green light. If these fine details will be resolved by the lens on the camera, that's another story.

In the experiment I used a 24MP Sony A99 FF camera, a Pentacon 50mm F1.8 lens at F2.8, and a Sigma Achromatic of 1.6 diopters. It is important to say that the Pentacon 50mm is as good in the center as any other 6-element double-Gauss lens, so the results should be representative for other normal lenses.

The object was a microscope slide with a section of a mouse heart. The focus distance was 50cm. The photographed area had dimensions of 17.5 x 11.7cm, which meant a magnification of 1:4.9. The picture below shows the full image. The pink circular shape in the center of the image is the section of the mouse heart.


Section of mouse heart - focus distance = 50cm - Pentacon 50mm at F2.8 plus Sigma Achromatic - full image:


The photo below is a 100% crop, which gives an idea of the finest details in the image. The question that has to be made here is: Is the achieved resolution limited by the performance of the close-up lens?

Section of mouse heart - focus distance = 50cm - Pentacon 50mm at F2.8 plus Sigma Achromatic - 100% crop:


To answer the above question, we need to know what is the ultimate resolution attainable with the close-up lens. I'll use a FZ200 working at the maximum equivalent focal length of 600mm. Thus way the FZ200 will function as a kind of microscope to scrutinize the image produced by the close-up lens. When working at 600mm eq, the focal length lens FZ200 is actually 108mm. For an absolute aperture of 17.9mm, the relative aperture (F-number) should be F6, so in the test I used the nearest aperture F5.6.

The image captured by the FZ200 is shown below:

Section of mouse heart - focus distance = 50cm - FZ200 - 600mm eq at F5.6 plus Sigma Achromatic - full image:



Let us now compare the 100% crop of the FZ200 image with a 600% crop of the initial image produced by the A99.

Section of mouse heart - focus distance = 50cm - FZ200 - 600mm eq at F5.6 plus Sigma Achromatic - 100% crop:


Section of mouse heart - focus distance = 50cm - Pentacon 50mm at F2.8 plus Sigma Achromatic - 600% crop:



It is very clear that the details captured by the FZ200 "microscope" are much smaller than those captured by the A99. This means that when the magnification is 1:4.9 or so, na achromatic close-up lens has a much higher resolution than the Pentacon 50mm plus the camera sensor. I don't believe that this result would change much if the Pentacon 50mm were replaced by another 50mm lens. Probably, the limitation of resolution comes mainly from limited resolution of the A99's 24MP sensor, which has a pixel pitch of 6 microns. If the sensor had a pixel pitch of, say, 1 micron, perhaps the limit of resolution would be given by the close-up lens, and not by the sensor. However, for a pixel pitch of only 1 micron, a full-frame sensor should have a resolution of 864MP! Maybe we get there in ten or 20 years...


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After reading this thread, I decided to try some achromatic additions....
First, a 58mm Sigma -- only marked as "achromatic macro lens" -- all references indicate it is 1.6 diopter.
It worked well on my Sony 18-135 lens (which has the option of very good manual focus) but the best results so far -- probably just due to variation in the daylight -- have been with the Sigma added to a Tamron SP 90mm (52BB).
The addition does seem to make the Tamron 90mm a bit easier to use -- I had previously favoured the Tamron SP 35-80 (01A).





Another achromat arrived today -- a 58mm Opteka "10x high definition macro lens".
Inexpensive new on Amazon, but I go this one second-hand for £5 anyway. This was it on the 18-135mm Sony lens....



Will also be getting a Sony 3.3 diopter in a couple of days.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice pictures. They are sharp for my eyes.

norland wrote:
Another achromat arrived today -- a 58mm Opteka "10x high definition macro lens".


Very interesting. The Opteka description says that it has 4(!) elements, what suggest a high quality lens formed by a pair of achromatic doublets. However, the designation 10X is misleading because 10X is not the magnification of the lens! In fact, a close-up lens does not have an intrinsic magnification. The magnification is given by the combination of the camera lens with the close-up lens. The description says the focal length is 4 inches, which corresponds to approximately 100mm. Thus it can be inferred that the Opteka lens is a close-up of 10 diopters.

By the way, for those unaware, the magnification when using a close-up lens is simply given by:

Magnification = FL1 / FL2

where:
FL1 = focal length of the lens on the camera
FL2 = focal length of the close-up lens

When the close-up lens is specified in diopters, use the formula:

Magnification = FL1 * D / 1000

where D is the power of the close-up lens in diopters.

For example, for a 50mm camera lens and close-up lens of 10 diopters (like the Opteka) the magnification is given by:

Magnification = 50 * 10/1000 = 0.5 = 1:2


Note: The above formulas are valid only when the focus of the camera lens is set to infinity. For other focus settings, the calculation is slightly more complicated, but the magnification will always be greater than for the focus set to infinity.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sony A57 .... Tamron Adaptall SP 35-80mm (01A) fitted with a 3.3 diopter Sony VCL-M3358 AC close-up





PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good and sharp shots! I always admired people who can do good macro photography of live insects.

The combination of the Tamron SP Adaptall 35-80mm (01A) with the 3.3 diopter Sony VCL-M3358 AC close-up seems to be excellent.

I see that you quickly put together a nice set of achromatic close-up lenses. It is one of the best investments that a photographer can make because it will be useful for a lifetime. The close-up lenses can be used with any format, from FF to compact cameras with 1/2.3" sensors. They can even be used with camcorders. I.e., if you migrate one day to another photographic system, your close-up lenses will not lose their utility.

Those who imagine that close-up lenses are an amateurish way of doing macro photography, and that only a dedicated macro lens should be considered for professional works, should take a look at this set:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674795-REG/Zeiss_DigiDiopter_Full_Set.html


PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The daylight was poor today, but I wanted to try out another add-on, the Kenko AC CLOSE-UP No.9
Ended up having to use flash, which isn't ideal on the Sony A57 with its slow synch speed.
Lens used was a Tamron SP 90mm, focus at infinity. The image-crop below is scaled down to exactly half its original size.



PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried an achromatic closeup lens on a tokina 35-70 ( was that too wide?) lens and had problems with CA and abandoned the idea.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
I tried an achromatic closeup lens on a tokina 35-70 ( was that too wide?) lens and had problems with CA and abandoned the idea.

What make and model of achromat did you try?
There's one I had almost given up on, a "Minolta close-up lens No.1 for SR", till it turned out to be highly compatible
with the kit lens which came with the camera (Sony 18-55mm SAL1855).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

norland,
Very sharp capture. Is it possible to see the individual eyes of the fly.


hifisapi,
I suspect you used a non-achromatic close-up lens. I tested a Sigma achromatic lens on a Tamron 28mm F2.8 and had no problem with chromatic aberration. However, a strong pincushion distortion and vignetting were very evident.

The magnification you get with a wide angle lens and a close-up is relatively small, unless the close-up lens is very powerful. Interestingly, with extension rings the situation is just the opposite: it is more difficult to have large magnifications with telephoto lenses than with smaller focal length.

In short, it is not recommended to use close-up lenses with wide angle lenses. However, an achromatic close-up lens should work fine with focal lengths of 50mm or larger, prime or zoom, it does not matter.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a very interesting discussion.

By chance I just purchased a Sigma 50-200mm APO F3.5-4.5 lens with bundled apochromatic macro filter (1.6x). I am picking up the combo tomorrow. When I have the items in hand, I will do some shooting against my army of macro lens and post a report back.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olympus E-pm2 + Tamron 90mm f2.5 1-1 @f8.+Century Optics Apochromatic 7x