Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Panasonic / Leica (
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 91976] (

Peter_with_digicam May 25, 2006 8:51 AM

I don't think the central part of the close-up of the coaster with 14 dioptre attached is bad at all in comparison with the picture taken with no add-on at all. Definition falls off outwards from the centre in both cases, but how much of this is due to your exposure combinations of 1/13 and 1/10 at f/2.8 (moderately long exposures at maximum aperture), I don't know. Depth of field is not much of an issue with this subject, if we're comparing how the top surface of the coaster is defined (I used to do these sort of comparisons of definition with a flat gridded chart, so that depth of field was irrelevant).

I suppose this would have improved in both cases with a much smaller aperture, but then you'd have needed a tripod. I take it you had no tripod but were using OIS mode 2.

Not a bad performance with the coaster on the face of it in my opinion, but of course the real comparison would have been against a single multi-element close-up lens. I don't think you've been sold a pup though, do you? - for £13.90 although your postage was steep!

Thanks for coming back with some sample comparisons so quickly.

simonbratt99 May 25, 2006 9:15 AM


Sure was all hand held and a bit rushed.

I dont know why i expected a bit more magnification from the macro lenses. I cant see the point in using anything but the 10D to be honest.

And am i using them correctly? as ive heard mention of tubes n stuff. (i screwed it straight onto the FZ30 lens.

romerojpg May 25, 2006 3:34 PM

The Wasps head looks great to me a lot closer and clearer than I can get with the standard camera without any add ons :) looks great for that amount of cash.

Peter_with_digicam May 25, 2006 4:00 PM

Tubes? You only used to use those with SLRs. Yes, you just screw on to the front of the Leica, having removed any UV etc first. You can't use tubes with a fixed lens camera like the Lumix.

simonbratt99 May 26, 2006 3:30 AM

ah ok thanks, no tubes then.

Yes my conclusion so far is, they are well worth the money

Should i be taking the UV filter off? i havent yet.

Peter_with_digicam May 26, 2006 8:07 AM


Some will argue that for perfection of resolution you should never have a filter (eg UV) screwed on the front of the prime lens. I don't subscribe to that one, and I have yet to see published tests to show that it makes one jot of practical difference whether you do or don't. Using a UV filter primarily as a lens protector makes more sense to me.

I suggested that it was removed earlier purely from the point of view of getting your close-up filters as close as possible to the prime lens. Again, in practice it will probably make little practical difference. If you had the time to experiment, it may be interesting to see whether there is any difference in terms of magnification of image as a result of either leaving or removing the UV.

romerojpg May 26, 2006 11:46 AM

Get some more pictures taken so we can see more results with these cheap add ons :-) as nice bright outside insects should be the best test of the add ons. Just need some sun and some nice insects I guess

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:26 PM.