What's the difference apart from the size?

macro filter would be something like Raynox DCR-250 I believe, it attaches to the front of the lens.

a macro extension tube on the other hand, is placed between the lens and the camera body.

unlike macro filter, extension tube doesnt have any glasses

filter degrades the quality of pics
it lil sharp on centres and worst at corners

here is image i took using 10x hoya filter

So the result is exactly the same?

Thx for sharing, but can crop . U got take any macro shots of insect with that filter b4?
Extension tube also got this prob?

I own 100mm macro, but most of the time the subject is to small. The raynox help reducing the minimun focus distance for more magnification. For me, I no longer use the ET as high chances dust get into the sensor. My fav combo however m43 body, olympus 40-150mm + raynox. Its light, cheap combo and importantly still do the job.

nope.
any additional glass, especially the low quality glass will degrade ur photo quality. usually it'll decrease the sharpness and contribute to more CA.

ext tube doesnt have glass, so no changes in the photo quality.

still, macro filter is much more easier to be used compared to ext tube

some samples. taken with 50mm + ext tube:


EJAD0108 by Ejad_Fotopoyo, on Flickr


IMGP9779 by Ejad_Fotopoyo, on Flickr

I dont see any degrade in photo quality with raynox. The DOF become thinner when you become much closer with your subject. Uncrop..GX1/Oly40-150 @ 102mm + raynox250 with in camera flash. Raynox 150 maybe less demanding to use. No CA correction


Fish Hook Ant by MS@N PHOTOGRAPHY, on Flickr

This post has been edited by kenary820: Oct 6 2013, 10:29 AM

sure can crop, but it will be different story, the quality will not be the same

i taken few photos of ants and flowers before, quality not really that great, raynox will do better job i guess




This post has been edited by alpha001: Oct 6 2013, 02:05 PM

100mm with raynox 250


robberfly by melnikor, on Flickr



weevil by melnikor, on Flickr


mosquito by melnikor, on Flickr


jumping spider having lunch by melnikor, on Flickr

this one crop a lot ....


robberfly by melnikor, on Flickr

This post has been edited by melnikor: Oct 6 2013, 03:31 PM

Last time I used Raynox, I didn't like the output. Went for a macro lens in the end.

Raynox is different from ET and macro filter? Macro lens not enough? Still need to add raynox?
Now I see there's 4 solutions for macro which is macro lens, raynox, ET and macro filter.

Thx. What's CA?

The quality looks okay for me

Like this I think not acceptable for me. Thx for sharing.

100mm is macro lens?

yeah 100mm L macro
i also add ET for normal shot .. only use raynox for close up, or very small insect

This post has been edited by melnikor: Oct 7 2013, 12:20 AM

^ Example of normal shot?

without raynox


finger print ant by melnikor, on Flickr


robberfly having lunch by melnikor, on Flickr


Ant Mimic Spider by melnikor, on Flickr


Robberfly by melnikor, on Flickr

with raynox


Robberfly Eye by melnikor, on Flickr

50mm with raynox


bee1 by melnikor, on Flickr


spider2 by melnikor, on Flickr

daniel, if you don't already know, macro lens can be used as a normal lens like any other prime lens to focus on everyday subject, just that macro lens allow you to get very close to the subject. if you're really interested in macro, straight get the macro lens. macro lens usually have higher optic quality, but with smaller aperture and longer focal length.

for E mount version, 30mm isn't very long but still not very convenient as multipurpose lens. but if that's what you want, it's better than spending extra money to try all sorts of macro lens alternatives to end up giving up and buy the macro lens.

Thx for sharing, but can I see some samples from the macro lens alone (50mm preferred)? Sorry if I'm asking too much.

Eh I didn't know that . So 30mm isn't convenient to be used as a multipurpose lens, but is it ok for portrait at least?

This post has been edited by danielcmugen: Oct 7 2013, 12:58 AM

no prob ..just sharing
50mm ... i use normal canon 50mm 1.8 ... not real macro lens ..

100mm macro only, no tube n raynox,


bunga kamboja by melnikor, on Flickr


white and yellow water lily by melnikor, on Flickr


dragonfly3 by melnikor, on Flickr


butterfly6 by melnikor, on Flickr


spider4 by melnikor, on Flickr

that lens is 45mm equivalent, while lumia 800 is 28mm equivalent, which is about 1.6x of lumia 800. you can always try setting your phone to 1.6x and see if you like the field of view, but i think not easy to know what's the focal length or zoom level since camera phone don't have indication for this.

This post has been edited by little ice: Oct 7 2013, 01:28 AM

This 1 right? http://www.sony.com.my/product/sel30m35 Wonder why they call it 30mm when its focal length is not 30mm.

I checked the max aperture of both the 16-50 kit lens and the macro lens above, both same. Advantage of kit lens is shorter/adjustable focal length and 3x optical zoom, advantage of macro lens is ability to shoot macro. Sounds alright to ditch the kit lens for macro? Can save some money. But since the focal length of kit lens can go until 75mm, it should mean that it will have better bokeh in non-macro shots compared to macro lens?

Tough decision but I'm leaning towards keeping the kit lens. Any inputs?

This post has been edited by danielcmugen: Oct 7 2013, 03:16 PM

it is a true 30mm, but on a smaller sensor compared to full frame, you get smaller crop. to get the same field of view in full frame (35mm format), it's 1.5x of aps-c, which is 45mm. so people use the full frame 35mm format as the standard for equivalent. like Nokia 808 actual focal length is 8mm, but to make it equal to 35mm format for easier interpretation, it's actually 26mm.

save money. it's interchangeable lens camera, you'll start to invest quite a few more lens in the future.

I expected u to suggest me to keep the kit lens as adviced by u few days ago when I was comparing with prime , may I know why it's different when I compare with macro lens?

This macro lens vs the standard kit lens, which will give more detail in pictures of non-macro shots? Ignoring the focal length.

This post has been edited by danielcmugen: Oct 7 2013, 02:48 PM

I am still a noob in macro

But macro lenses will allow you to get much closer for smaller insects, and should focus better and easier too (Assuming you are using an NEX-3N + Kitlens at the moment)
Summore macro lenses can be used for normal shots too, although they in general focus slower than prime or kitlens

A quick Google search revealed that the 30mm macro lens doesn't seem to be very good at optical quality, especially soft at the corners
But can't really expect too much since its pretty affordable

This post has been edited by [PF] T.J.: Oct 7 2013, 03:14 PM

Soft corners , I googled also....actually I dun think it's gonna be obvious. But optic quality (excluding the corners) for non-macro shots on both day/night, kit lens or macro will win?

On a side note those features in http://snapsort.com/cameras/Sony-Alpha-NEX-3N-specs like in-camera HDR, 25 focus points, RAW support, 30sec long exposure and good dynamic range will still be there if I change lenses?

This post has been edited by danielcmugen: Oct 7 2013, 04:14 PM

i mean, save more money and top up for the macro lens along with the kit lens package.

or, save up for adaptor and macro lens from other manufacturer. the good thing about the NEX is the focus peaking is dead easy to use.

2nd part of your post, it really depends on the optical quality of the lens, the better the quality, the higher the price. so the SEL30M priced at RM999 retail, i wouldn't expect too much quality though it should be better than the kit lens. i never try the macro lens, only playing with demo unit at KLCC. phone them and see if they have SEL30M for demo, and bring along your SD card.

This post has been edited by little ice: Oct 7 2013, 04:23 PM

Wah, a bit hard to compare there since both are different type of lenses man
Personally I think soft corners may be a problem for macro since you don't always frame your subjects in the middle right?

As for the features, no worries, they will be around even if you switch lenses

again, it depends on the optical quality, not always macro = better optics, main purpose of macro lens is to get very close to the subject. test out a unit if you have the chance.


that's body function, not lens function...

my advice is just buy the camera and start playing it, you'll understand more if you actually get your hands on it.

Got adaptor means can use DSLR macro lens?

Dunno, usually macro I will crop . But I've seen a bunch of sample pics on Flickr, looks very good to me. Soft corners then soft corners only lor, no choice . My budget only 2k including the camera, can't top up.

RM2k is pretty good already yo

Can get either NEX-3N + kitlens + a fancier lens; or even a NEX-5R + kitlens
I would recommend going for the NEX-5R instead, better ergonomics and controls

yup, even lens made 20 years ago also can use, if you have the right adaptor.

Ergonomics I dun really care, but what control?

That extra dial on the upper right will help a lot in getting you the settings you want as compared to none on the NEX-3n
Definitely worth it

Not to mention you get touchscreen for easier access to functions etc.

How much is NEX 5R?

Not sure how much the NEX-5R costs now that the NEX-5T (~RM1950 with kitlens) is out.
But do expect the price to be cheaper. Since the NEX-5T doesn't really have much upgrades from the 5R, the 5R is the better pick, especially if you are on a budget

I think you should stick to the kitlens (I don't think they sell NEX body only), and invest in some cheap extension tubes. That should be within your budget
Play around with it first, when you are familiar with macro already and when budget permits, then get a dedicated macro lens

This post has been edited by [PF] T.J.: Oct 8 2013, 09:54 AM

that seems always a common dilemma for first camera.

like myself, when i read more about cameras, the more i "want", and end up no decision. so i went and bought my first camera and learned a lot since then.

Thank you, I think I'll keep the kit lens and play with it 1st. If I get 3N, I'll go straight for macro lens as I'm lazy to go through the hassle of trying an extension tube or raynox. For 5R, depends on price 1st but I think at most I can only afford a raynox with my 2k budget.

Daniel you need lens longer than 50mm otherwise you'll vignetting which is not fun if you considering raynox. Anyway looking at your flickr, I feel shame cos you have been taking wonderful photo just with HP hehe..

Thanks for the advice, raynox at most will only be a temporary solution. Will always eye a macro lens.
Lately been using compact cam more than phone btw

part of the attributes of a good macro is it is capable of maintaining a very flat focal plane.. how else did they do photo reproduction then? Nikkor 50 is reputed to be among the favorite.. so to accept soft edge is not relevant. IF you use stock prime for macro work then it will be soft because it is not design and compensated to have a flat surface edge to edge. There are sweet spots you have to use to achieve those results... refer to each lens technical datasheet for them. Have fun... BtW,, enlarger lens do make good macro too...

I dun have any other options for e-mount macro lens within my budget. But what is enlarger lens?

I rather use an extension tube than a macro filter.

Extension tube generally reduces your minimal focus distance at the expanse of light. Some extension tube may still allow you to control your aperture, others will not.

Macro filters, including close up filters will degrade your image quality.
With cheaper macro filters, you'll see lots of chromatic aberration and extremely softfocus, especially on the edges.

There is also the reverse mount method. Which I'm not a fan off as it'll be a dust magnet.

I say go for the extension tubes if you do not have the budget for a macro lens.

BTW Enlargers are devices used during the film era to transfer photograph from films onto prints. Basically like a transparency projector. Film -> lens -> photosensitive print. The lens works to enlarge the image from the film onto a print. Dodging and burning during the pre-photoshop era are also done during this process.

Personally I use a Canon 600D which has a crop factor of 1.6X with a Tamron SP90 (90mm f/2.8), that gives 1:1 at about 11 inches minimum focus distance. In general, this is good enough since I can always crop the pic if the subject is really small, e.g., < 1 cm long. If I want a larger than 1:1 image, then I clip on a Raynox 250 that brings the minimum focus distance down to 4 inches or less, and it does not really destroy the image quality. The 2 pics here will show what I mean. Taken at ISO400, f/11, 1/200, diffused Yongnuo flash, handheld, contrast boosted 5%, no other adjustments.

1st one is uncropped and only downsized for LYN :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85704451@N04/10472915854/

2nd one is cropped and further downsized :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85704451@N04/10472919106/

So I always bring the Raynox around just in case I need it. DOF is super thin, but it should be better on a m43 sensor

my setup is E mount and you can practically fit any glass on it with a little homework. that is the beauty of E mount!

If your budget is <1k you can get a manual 50mm Micro Nikkor.. if hard press get the f3.5 from eBay.. I got a f2.8 for a friend for 800 recently and it was in excellent condition.

Enlarger lens - those are the ones use for printing in the dark room.. you will need bellows or focusing helicoid to get it to work.. Just make sure the mounts are M43 or M39 (leica thread) if possible or you will need to do a bit more work.. Stack them up with Extension tubes and short focusing helicoid and you are game for a long time.. You can even get Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 1:2.8 f=50mm for US100/ including shipping right now in Ebay!