Close-up achromatic lens for FX1 at DVinfo.net

Alex Raskin · June 28th, 2005, 07:51 AM

For the macro shots, what would be a good achromatic lens for FX1?

I found Century Optics acromats for almost $400 each - phew... any other, more affordable options? I don't do macro that much to justify the big $$ expense.

Barry Green · June 28th, 2005, 09:20 AM

Canon's 250D and 500D are a lot less expensive, and 72mm threads. Don't know how they'll hold up for HD resolution, but I presume they'll do just fine.

For a real budget alternative, but still quite high quality, look at the Nikon 5T and 6T. They're 62mm thread, so you'd need a step-down ring, but you can get both for around $100 total.

Radek Svoboda · June 28th, 2005, 09:26 AM

Barry,

Are those achromats, or just single element closeup lenses?

They don't need be marked HD but they need be achromats.

Radek

Barry Green · June 28th, 2005, 06:05 PM

Canon makes two series, ones that are less-expensive single-element and ones that are more-expensive two-element achromats. The 250D and 500D are the two-element versions.

The Nikon 5T and 6T are achromats, as far as I know.

Radek Svoboda · June 28th, 2005, 11:05 PM

Canon and Nikon optics are superior. I would even not bother with overpriced Century Optics.

Radek

Alex Raskin · June 29th, 2005, 06:24 AM

Seems like we need 250D for FX1, judging by the specs: 250D is for 30-135mm focal length of the lens, while 500D is for 70-300mm.

It is my understanding taht FX1 lenses' focal length is 4.5 -54mm, so only Canon 250D will be suitable?

Now, B&H lists 250D with only 52 or 58mm threads. Obviously I'll have to *zoom in* on FX1 any way, but it'd be nice to have 250D with a larger thread (72mm would be nice... they do have 500D with 72mm thread...)

Barry Green · June 29th, 2005, 10:58 AM

52mm or 58mm is quite a step-down, especially for a lens as wide-angle as the FX1. I've got the 5T and 6T on my DVX, and the threads are 62mm, and I have to zoom in to Z60 to get rid of the vignetting (Z60 means about 12.5mm). With a 52mm or 58mm ring you'd have to zoom in even further.

If you're planning on always being zoomed in 100%, then that shouldn't matter, but if you wanted to be able to use more of the focal range of the lens, just be aware that you'll be losing a significant amount of range.

Radek Svoboda · June 29th, 2005, 11:04 AM

I think he should stay at least 63 mm.

Radek

Alex Raskin · July 1st, 2005, 12:31 PM

...so I went for the biggest boobs, and purchased Canon 500D.

It worked! No adapter ring needed (it's already 72mm), and it seems to work just fine.

Not only is it good for macro video, but also it has a side benefit of a shallower DOF - very beautiful.

Barry, Thank You for the great tip!

Jeffrey Liou · July 1st, 2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

...
Not only is it good for macro video, but also it has a side benefit of a shallower DOF - very beautiful.

You mean you put it on during non-macro video work and got a shallow DOF ?

it would be great !

Barry Green · July 1st, 2005, 09:35 PM

No, that's not how it works. A diopter can't do anything to change the depth of field of a shot -- it just lets you focus closer than you otherwise would be able to.

Focusing close makes for shallower depth of field, but obviously your subject size will be much bigger. If you have a camera with a fairly long minimum focus distance (like the original DVX100, which had a minimum focus distance of 3 feet), then a diopter will let you move the camera closer and zoom in more while still being able to focus. That can help get a shallower DOF effect than you might otherwise be able to, but it necessarily means you'll be shooting an extreme closeup.

Radek Svoboda · July 2nd, 2005, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

...so I went for the biggest boobs, and purchased Canon 500D.

Alex,

How much is the lens, is it achromat, how many diopters it have? How much is compatable Century Optics lens? How close does camera focus now compared to before?

Radek

June 28th, 2005, 07:51 AM	#1
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Close-up achromatic lens for FX1 For the macro shots, what would be a good achromatic lens for FX1? I found Century Optics acromats for almost $400 each - phew... any other, more affordable options? I don't do macro that much to justify the big $$ expense.

June 28th, 2005, 09:20 AM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Canon's 250D and 500D are a lot less expensive, and 72mm threads. Don't know how they'll hold up for HD resolution, but I presume they'll do just fine. For a real budget alternative, but still quite high quality, look at the Nikon 5T and 6T. They're 62mm thread, so you'd need a step-down ring, but you can get both for around $100 total.

June 28th, 2005, 09:26 AM	#3
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	Barry, Are those achromats, or just single element closeup lenses? They don't need be marked HD but they need be achromats. Radek

June 28th, 2005, 06:05 PM	#4
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Canon makes two series, ones that are less-expensive single-element and ones that are more-expensive two-element achromats. The 250D and 500D are the two-element versions. The Nikon 5T and 6T are achromats, as far as I know.

June 28th, 2005, 11:05 PM	#5
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	Canon and Nikon optics are superior. I would even not bother with overpriced Century Optics. Radek

June 29th, 2005, 06:24 AM	#6
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Seems like we need 250D for FX1, judging by the specs: 250D is for 30-135mm focal length of the lens, while 500D is for 70-300mm. It is my understanding taht FX1 lenses' focal length is 4.5 -54mm, so only Canon 250D will be suitable? Now, B&H lists 250D with only 52 or 58mm threads. Obviously I'll have to zoom in on FX1 any way, but it'd be nice to have 250D with a larger thread (72mm would be nice... they do have 500D with 72mm thread...)

June 29th, 2005, 10:58 AM	#7
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	52mm or 58mm is quite a step-down, especially for a lens as wide-angle as the FX1. I've got the 5T and 6T on my DVX, and the threads are 62mm, and I have to zoom in to Z60 to get rid of the vignetting (Z60 means about 12.5mm). With a 52mm or 58mm ring you'd have to zoom in even further. If you're planning on always being zoomed in 100%, then that shouldn't matter, but if you wanted to be able to use more of the focal range of the lens, just be aware that you'll be losing a significant amount of range.

June 29th, 2005, 11:04 AM	#8
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	I think he should stay at least 63 mm. Radek

July 1st, 2005, 12:31 PM	#9
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	...so I went for the biggest boobs, and purchased Canon 500D. It worked! No adapter ring needed (it's already 72mm), and it seems to work just fine. Not only is it good for macro video, but also it has a side benefit of a shallower DOF - very beautiful. Barry, Thank You for the great tip!

July 1st, 2005, 09:35 PM	#11
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	No, that's not how it works. A diopter can't do anything to change the depth of field of a shot -- it just lets you focus closer than you otherwise would be able to. Focusing close makes for shallower depth of field, but obviously your subject size will be much bigger. If you have a camera with a fairly long minimum focus distance (like the original DVX100, which had a minimum focus distance of 3 feet), then a diopter will let you move the camera closer and zoom in more while still being able to focus. That can help get a shallower DOF effect than you might otherwise be able to, but it necessarily means you'll be shooting an extreme closeup.