Nikkor Close Up Lenses - anyone like these, opinions?

[68degrees]

You know the ones that screw in like filters? To make a non macro lens focus closer.

I noticed when I use the exension rings, I lose focus range. I ONLY have close focus. Then to take a picture of something even not that far away, I have to remove the extension ring.

Would a screw in close up filter allow focus range through to infinity? Would that be advisable on a nikkor 135 to simply add a closer focus without taking away distant focus? how does that work?

 

[sevo]

Would a screw in close up filter allow focus range through to infinity?

In one word: No.

Full explanation: A dioptre lens adds to the refraction of the lens, shortening its focal length. As the barrel length remains unchanged, the focus range shifts inwards - by the reciprocal of the dioptre value (i.e. a 1dpt accessory lens will change the focal distance at infinity setting to 1m, a 2dpt lens to 0.5m).

 

[Waus]

I love the T versions of the Nikon-close up lenses, they consists of two (that's the T for..)elements, there are four T versions, nr. 4T. 5T (52mm)& 5T &6T(62mm)

 

[daveleo]

Those close-up filters aren't so great. They do detract from the quality quite a bit.

If you can cough up the cash, get a used Micro Nikkor 55mm/f2.8 in decent shape. Aside from it's really beautiful close-up capability, it is also an excellent general purpose lens. (It would be 82mm EFOV on a APS camera.)


EDIT: I realize that I do not have Nikon brand close-up attachments. Mine are less expensive 3rd party brand. (I just looked. Haven't used them in several years.)

 

[Spavinaw]

The lenses are going to limit your focusing range just like the tubes. You cannot use them and retain infinity focus. However, there is a way to do what you want. It's called a 2X macro focusing teleconverter. Vivitar and others made them in the past. Used with a 50mm lens, the 2X function turns it into a 100mm lens. The macro focusing function allows it to focus anywhere from infinity down to a 1:1 lifesize ratio. I have one. Used with a 135mm lens, which becomes a 270mm lens, you can focus from infinity down to about 30 inches.

 

[Dwig]

Those close-up filters aren't so great. They do detract from the quality quite a bit.

Nikon's work very very well when used on lenses of the appropriate focal length. The later versions of the #1 & #2 are multicoated while the earlier versions, along with the #0, are single coated. All of the T versions are multicoated.

#0 - very weak, appropriate for the 43-86 and the early 200mm f/4

#1 & #2 - These are excellent +1.5 and +3 diopter lenses made for the 50mm Nikkors

#3T & #4T - These are excellent 52mm diameter #1.5 and #3.0 diopter lenses designed specifically for the 105, 135 and 200mm lenses. They will also work well with the 80-200 f/4.5

#5T & #6T - These are 62mm versions of the 3T and 4T and are intended for use with the new modest telephoto zooms that use 62mm filters.

I have an old #0, #1, & #2 set and find that the #2 works extremely well on my Pany 14-45 that I use on my G-1.

 

[kxl]

In a pinch they're okay, but if you shoot macros on a semi-regular basis, you're better off buying a macro lens. They are so cheap right now and there are so many of them that there's no reason not to.

I addition to the Nikkors, also consider the macro lenses from Kiron, Vivitar, Tokina, etc... Just pick a focal length and go with it. All macro lenses I've ever owned (more than a few) have been exceedingly sharp. I don't do as much macro photography as I used to, but I have kept my Kiron 105/2.8.

Also note that in shooting macros, just as important as the lens are the lighting and support, and especially striking a balance between sufficient lighting and sufficient DOF.

Could have used a little more DOF on this one, but I like it:

 

[68degrees]

In a pinch they're okay, but if you shoot macros on a semi-regular basis, you're better off buying a macro lens. They are so cheap right now and there are so many of them that there's no reason not to.

I addition to the Nikkors, also consider the macro lenses from Kiron, Vivitar, Tokina, etc... Just pick a focal length and go with it. All macro lenses I've ever owned (more than a few) have been exceedingly sharp. I don't do as much macro photography as I used to, but I have kept my Kiron 105/2.8.

Also note that in shooting macros, just as important as the lens are the lighting and support, and especially striking a balance between sufficient lighting and sufficient DOF.

Could have used a little more DOF on this one, but I like it:

is this from the 105 kiron?

The reason I ask about the close up filters is that they are small and easy to carry.

 

[kxl]

Not this one. I shot this with the Nikon 200mm/4 AFD Micro -to this day I regret selling that lens.

Bulk/weight wise, obviously the filters would be much lighter than carrying another lens, but the 55-60mm macro lenses are reasonably small.

 

[Dwig]

Here's an image that I took this past Saturday:

Panasonic G-1, 14-45mm @ 45mm, Nikon #2 (+3d) Closeup attachment

 

[68degrees]

Here's an image that I took this past Saturday:

Panasonic G-1, 14-45mm @ 45mm, Nikon #2 (+3d) Closeup attachment

thats quite sharp and with a close up filter. Very nice. How far away was the front element from your subject?

 

[kxl]

thats quite sharp and with a close up filter. Very nice. How far away was the front element from your subject?

Not to argue but compare the wing venation and pattern of the image I posted captured by a true macro lens versus the one captured with the close up attachment.

Another example - same lens:

 

[Frontman]

I used to use the PK-13 reversing ring, which allows you to mount a 52mm filter-size lens backward. This was a surprisingly simple idea and device. But with real macro lenses selling cheaply nowadays, I don't see the point in close-up lenses, extension tubes, or reversing rings. I bought a clean used Micro-Nikkor used for less than what I paid some years ago for a new PK-13. Of course, these accessories are also now very inexpensive.

 

[Dwig]

thats quite sharp and with a close up filter. Very nice. How far away was the front element from your subject?

thanks

I don't know the subject distance accurately, but is was somewhere close to the lens' minimum focusing distance with the attachment which would make it probably 6"-8". It is a rather small butterfly and the shot, BTW, is cropped to about 1/2 of the frame area.