1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

MACRO MiniTest - Polaroid close-up rings (52 mm)

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by Jermonic, May 24, 2012.

  1. Jermonic

    Jermonic Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 14, 2012
    Denmark
    Hey folks....

    Just ordered the Polaroid close-up rings (52 mm) for my G3 with the 14-45 lens. Basically 4 filters (+1,2,4,10) with magnifying glass and double filter threads. The latter means you can put them on top of eachother, to reach a maximum of 17x magnification.

    As my test shows, it doesn't really make sense to use the 1x ring, as it adds some heavy vignetting (but of course also adds some slight magnification).

    Tried a few shots today. Better than expected for 20 dollars worth of equipment, at least it gives me the possibility to try out macro photo on a budget. :)

    A few samples (don't mind the text - it makes sense when looking at them in sequence):







    Check out the whole series here (on flickr)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Jermonic

    Jermonic Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 14, 2012
    Denmark
    Forgot to mention:
    - All shots were hand held - and most are between 400 and 1600 in ISO. 1-2 pics at ISO 3200.
    - All are uncropped, except the "moustache shot", and the pictures of the lenses/lens bag.
    - Autofocus works splendid.
     
  3. CeGeDee

    CeGeDee Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    Feb 3, 2012
    Yorktown, VA
    I also did similar experiments on 37mm close-up lenses for an Oly 45 f/1.8. Initially, I thought that the results were hopeless: there was an unacceptable amount of glare - like cataracts! Only the +1 was clean, but the resolution was not better than cropping a picture taken without the close-up lens. That's until I tried smaller apertures and, with anything above f/5.6, the glare magically disappeared.
    Is it normal to get that much glare with a close-up lens on a wide open lens? Is it surprising that smaller apertures quickly eliminate the glare?
    PS. The numbers on the lenses are diopters, not magnification numbers.
     
  4. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Yes, it's normal. And no, it's not a surprise.

    Achromatic close-up lenses perform better but cost a lot more. I just got a Marumi +3 achromat that I'm trying out.

    Fred
     
  5. Jermonic

    Jermonic Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 14, 2012
    Denmark
    CeGeDee:
    Thanks for the correction, I didn't pay attention to that.

    A part from that, I also saw an increase in detail/sharpness when stopping down. f/3.5 wasn't as sharp as f/5.6 or f/8.
     
  6. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Thanks for posting this. I've seen those filters and frankly dismissed them just because I figured they were too cheap to be any good. Your images have changed my mind...this looks like a decent, cheap entry into macro photography.
     
  7. Jermonic

    Jermonic Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 14, 2012
    Denmark
    DeejayK:
    I think for the price (almost nothing) it's a lot of fun, especially (at the moment for me) shooting eyes.

    But, of course there's the heavy pincushion/barrel distortion, and the quite exposed protruding 10x lens front element (which will be the outer element when you combine). That's the things I can think of at the moment.
     
  8. I'm anxious to hear how you like it. I'm currently poised between the Marumi and the Olympus MA-whatever converter.
     
  9. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    I think the smallest Marumi is 49mm, but there's always Raynox.

    I hope to post some pics tomorrow.

    Fred
     
  10. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I have the same sets too however haven't found it useful due to the huge CA and distortion, but you seem to have pleasant outcome with the 2+4+10 combo
     
  11. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
    Here's one taken last year with either the mZuiko 40-150 or mZuiko 14-150 with a Marumi DHG 200 (+5 diopter).


     
  12. Jermonic

    Jermonic Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 14, 2012
    Denmark
    Not bad, that Marumi thing, albeit a tad more expensive. Good detail, no CA or the likes.

    The one I made this topic about, has it's fair share of chromatic aberration, no doubt.
     
  13. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I've had a Canon 250D close-up lens on my GAS list for a while after reading some good things about it. Does anyone have any experience with that one. From what I can tell the Canon is (just) a +4 diopter.

    Any idea on how the Canon might compare to the Marumi?
     
  14. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
    They perform like the Marumi's, but cost 2x - 3x as the Marumi's.
     
  15. If I go Marumi, I plan to get the 58mm and use a step down ring on the smaller lenses. That way I can use it on the 14-150 as well. Apparently that is what Olympus does with their unit. What I have not been able to find out about the Olympus is the formal diopter rating and whether or not it is achromatic.
     
  16. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
    It is NOT an achromat, it has only one lens element.
    Closest focus distance (lens set at infinity) is .57 meters. here is the formula to figure the diopter of the lens.
    1 diopter = 1 meter = 1,000 mm = 39.37 inches
    1 meter / closest focus distance = diopter
    1 meter / diopter = closest focus distance

    1 meter / .57 meter = 1.75 diopter this is the diopter of the Olympus Macro Converter (MCON-P01)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. applemint

    applemint Mu-43 Veteran

    345
    Jan 24, 2012
    I got a Hoya close-up filter on ebay for £5 and autofocus works fine on that too - I then got a Raynox 150 and if you use autofocus the camera goes crazy trying to focus due to the limited range (if the camera is too far or too close to the object focus will be impossible). :biggrin: I mostly use the raynox on manual focus lenses though and focus by moving the camera backwards and forwards.

    I debated getting the Marumi but at the time the Raynox was slightly cheaper and more flexible as it has a clip on adjuster so will fit any lens with a filter size of 52mm or more (but I ended up getting step rings for each lens anyway as a neater solution and so I could use it on lenses with a 49mm filter thread).

    Marumi seems to be cheapest at Fotosense by the way: Search results for: 'marumi achromat'

    Amazon UK have the Raynox 150 for £34.90 at the moment which is a pretty good price - it seems to fluctuate between £30 and £50!
    Raynox DCR-150: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics
     
  18. Gusnyc

    Gusnyc Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Mar 9, 2010
    New York
    I have the Olympus converter, I wouldn't recommended. Less than an hour ago I received the Raynox DCR-250 converter. I tried a couple of pictures with the 12-50 in macro mode. I will post pictures later tonight, when I have more time.

    Gus
     
  19. Gusnyc

    Gusnyc Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Mar 9, 2010
    New York
    Here is a picture I took with the Raynox DCR-250 on the 15-50 in macro mode.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gus_nyc/7305898580/" title="The rose by Gus NYC, on Flickr">"800" height="600" alt="The rose"></a>
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. dgt8301

    dgt8301 Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    May 18, 2012
    I second applemint's endorsement of the Hoya. Excellent results so far with the multi-coat three-filter set (+1, +2, +4) using a G3. Minimal CA and distortion. No auto-focus problems at all. Dirt-cheap considering. Cheers.