10x Macro Lens for Point & Shoot

[Teewinot]

ELAY's macro creation over in a different section of the forum got me thinking about what I can do to get better macro shots with my point and shoot. Currently I can shoot in super macro mode and get within 5 mm of my subject, but the actual focal length (if I understand correctly) limits my ability to get as close as true macro lenses for dSLRs. In a brief search on eBay, I found "Opteka High Definition² 10x Pro Macro Lens" being sold for lots of different camera models, including mine (Olympus C-8080). The auction contains more details. It basically screws on to the existing lens on the camera.

So, the question is, are these lenses of good quality? I searched a little around the net for reviews, but came up pretty dry. Anyone ever used one or know if they are worth it?

Thanks.

p.s. I apologize if this has been discussed before...if so, then just direct me to the discussion...

[wulf]

You could check out the Cheapskates group on Flickr or look for photos tagged opteka.

Wulf

[ELAY]

I don't know Teewinot -- this quote in the eBay ad caught my eye:

This lens will enable you to get much closer than the minimum focus of the standard camera lens - as close as 4 inches from the subject.

I think your camera already gets you to within 2 inches of the subject on super macro, so I'm not sure this is something you need. It kind of begs the question as to why they would make this device for the Olympus, if it does nothing for it...

Also have a look at the before and after -- I think you are already in tighter than the after shot.

From what i have seen, you are getting in very tight already -- I don't know the equivalent conversion, but it looks tighter than 1:2, which puts it into very good company even on the DSLR front.

EL

EL

[Teewinot]

Wulf, good idea...I'll check these out...interesting group!

ELAY, I see what you mean...I wasn't sure what they meant by that either since I know that my lens can get physically extremely close to the subject (like I said before, I think 5mm is the closest). That said, I have two points:

1. It's important to note that the images you see on DPS of my 'macros' are cropped down from the original version. Since my camera is 8MP, this is doable and I often still end up with a hi-res image despite the cropping. However, I'd like to be able to get what I now crop down to as an image full in the frame if you follow me. Here's an example, using my iris symmetry photo:

Original


Cropped


So what I'm saying is that I'd like to get the 'cropped' version to be the original...my camera cannot get any closer than what you see in the original. And this brings me to my second point:

2. I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to understanding how lenses work and what focal length affects and such. I'm just trying understand that element that I am missing to get real 'magnification' of the subject. Do true macro lenses on dSLRs magnify? Or is the focal length the defining difference? In super macro mode, my focal length is locked at 23.4 mm (the lens is 7.13 - 35.6mm which is equivalent 28-140mm, or 5x, in 35mm terms). Aren't many macro lenses like 100 mm or something, for example? Sorry for my ignorance on this topic! If you have any insight, it would be greatly appreciated!

[ELAY]

We are way out of my depth here (but that never stopped me before). I remember a thread going around about a month ago about macro equivalencies and such, and it made my head spin. (At the very least we can expect to be educated about how magnification, focal length, viewing ratios, etc. are all very different things and shouldn't be mixed up!)

Let's see. I think the focal length of DSLR lenses mostly governs the distance at which you can shoot -- all things being equal, a 105 mm that goes to 1:1 lets you shoot from further away than the equivalent 60 mm (better for bugs). I don't think the focal length intrinsically contributes to what ratio you can get to.

As for comparing your lens performance with a dedicated DSLR lens, maybe somebody who knows what they are talking about can help. Here's what a reviewer at ImagingResource said about the field at supermacro:

Based on actual measurements, I found that the C-8080's minimum capture area was only 2.57 x 1.92 inches (65 x 49 millimeters) in normal macro mode, and an exceptional 1.47 x 1.11 inches (37 x 28 millimeters) in Super Macro mode.

Apart from gently correcting our errors, is there someone who can tell us if this info helps compare Teewinot's lens performance to that of a dedicated DSLR macro? Is there any way to convert this into an equivalent ration like 1:1, 1:2 etc.?

EL

[Teewinot]

ELAY, thanks so much for your insight. This stuff is way over my head, but I really would like to understand it. Perhaps someone can enlighten us both.

[Tunedout]

Have you checked out the Raynox DCR-250? I think, it's one of the best macro lens you can get for a P&S.

[wulf]

The Raynox DCR-250 gets my vote as an excellent add on for all types of cameras - P&S and DSLR... I was just waiting to give someone else a chance to be the first to mention it

For magnification ratios, you are talking about how large the photographed scene is compared to the sensor in your camera. In my D40, the sensor measures 23.7mm x 15.5mm (looked up on dpreview.com). Taking a close-up shot of a ruler, I could get as close as about 42mm wide x 28mm high (at 55mm on the kit lens and using the DCR-250). That means I'm getting a little closer than 1:2 but not down to "true macro" at 1:1.

To get down to 1:1, I think i would either need a bigger sensor or better magnification (so that I could view about 24mm of the ruler across the frame).

Wulf

[Teewinot]

Tunedout and Wulf, about the Raynox DCR-250....I looked it up and it seems promising...thanks for the tip!

Wulf, thanks for your explanation of magnification and sensor size. I will try to translate that using my camera's stats. I'm learning slowly but surely!!

[ELAY]

Wulf's explanation was helpful, and matches my understanding -- but at the same time I have to say that I remain perplexed (not by the explanation, but by the concepts).

Is there any room for resolution in the comparison? I mean if Teewinot and I both shoot at 6mp resolution, and if we both have an identical capture area, would it matter that the sensor on my D40 is several times larger in surface area than the sensor on her point and shoot? Wouldn't we end up with the same picture? What if Teewinot shoots it at 8mp?

This is why this topic makes my head hurt.

EL