russjc001 Loc: South Carolina

I have a 55 mm 1.8 prime and wish to do some macro. Would like some opinions on using an attached close-up lens vs getting extenders. Which provide the best clarity? I shoot with Sony A7RII.

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Neither. For a camera that costly, get a proper macro lens.

ELNikkor

For years I have used both, sometimes even at the same time when I wanted to get extra close. I would try a good close-up lens you screw on like a filter; I bought a set of three of varying powers, and was satisfied with the results. Then I ended up with a 2x converter from which I could unscrew the glass and then it use as an extension tube. Another trick I would try on occasion would be to turn my 43-86 Nikkor zoom around backwards and hold it against the body; got some amazing macro that way. Finally, got a German Nacht-Ulm macro lens dirt cheap, and that has been my sharpest macro yet. Depending on your budget and purpose, try what you find to be what best fits your needs from these 4 methods. Happy Shooting, and Happy Holidays!

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

You can use extension tubes. Good Macro lenses with a true 1:1 magnification are not cheap. Extension tubes or close up lenses are alternatives. I don't know about close up lenses, but I've been told a good set of third party extension tubes are the Kenko Brand. And should work on your 55mm 1.8 prime lens. I had the Vello Brand, but I no longer have an interest in Macro Photography anymore. Good luck.

OviedoPhotos

Depends if your macro interest is occasional or a passion.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Close up lenses add glass, extension tubes don't. That tells me that the close up lens are likely to affect image quality, especially ones as inexpensive as extension tubes.
Cheap close up lenses will not be very good so you would need to spend a lot more money to get good ones.
To experiment with macro go with extension tubes but remember that the working distance will be much shorter than say a 100mm macro lens
so don't let that discourage you if you want to pursue macro more seriously by getting a true macro lens.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

Close up lenses have some good attributes, they allow you to get closer and they don't cost you any light. But they can affect the sharpness of your image wich is not good.

Extension tubes allow you to get closer too and since there is no glass in them they do not offer any distortion. However the extension tubes can cost you dearly in light intensity. If you extend some distance you'll loose stops, not simply a single stop.

Teleconverters work too for macro but are not usually a good approach and of course they cost you light too.

Before I could afford macro lenses those were my solution. I found with the extension tubes I got good images, I simply had to work at high noon when daylight was abundant. I did try close up lenses too but I was never really happy with the results.

I'd suggest trying a set of extension tubes from Kenko. The auto ones link the lens to the camera electrically which then allows you the same control as you are used to without them. And then just practice. What you need to master is not so much the technology as the approach. You have to learn how to creep up on your subject without spooking it. That will take some practice and the tubes will help you get there. Later when you've finally mastered that technique you'll probably also be able to afford a macro lens which you would be able to use immediately as a result.

Using a reversed lens is also an effective way to do macro. A lens with an aperture ring would be ideal for that. There are also adaptors that enable you to mount a lens upside down. These are often very useful too.

Good Luck!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

To add on here...the above comment leads to an important point: adding extension tubes limits your options at the most inconvenient time--and you might lose the opportunity. Let's say you have your tubes on and you see a hummingbird 10 feet away. While you are fumbling to remove the tubes and reattach your lens, the bird is gone. With a true macro lens you can be at 1:1 for that small flower or beetle and then at 1:2, 1:4, or to "infinity and beyond...". Or at least to that 10' spot for the hummer. High quality close-up lenses, also called diopters, thread into the front of the lens--- so you may need a step up ring or two. The good ones are not cheap. short answer: if you are serious about macro photography, invest in a quality macro lens. Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tokina, & Tamron make good ones.... lots of choices-- and don't ignore a used one from KEH, Adorama, or B&H.....

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

True and I forgot to mention the light loss :)

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

There are many options to try. Some work better than others. Where you mainly notice the difference is in the edges since usually the middle of the image looks good. Here is a link describing macro adapters as low rent to high rent options:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008084/article/Buying-guide-Macro-Essentials-and-Accessories

And by the way, I have the screw on magnifier filters, and the Raynox DCR-150, extension tubes and dedicated macro lenses. I have gotten good results with all of them. And I have reversed lenses and gotten good results with that too. For reversing a lens, you need a manual lens that gives you access to aperture control since most lens I have stop down all the way when not under control of the camera.

Also, the focal length of the lens has quite an impact since it affects how close to the subject you need to be. Obviously if you have to get super close to some insect, it is going to be frightened and immediately depart the scene.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

This thread will answer your question: FAQ: Extension Tubes vs Bellows vs Tele-Extenders vs Add-on "Close-Up" Diopter Lenses at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26496-1.html

More macro FAQs here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-36372-1.html

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

What are you trying to shoot?

True macro lenses are optimized for working at or near the minimum focus distance. Putting either on a normal lens, intended for general use, may work for the occasional closeup, but they do not compare to the real thing. Besides, either the tubes or the filter will get you closer to your subject - that's how you get the extra magnification - and if you aren't shooting stamps or coins on a copy stand, you are likely to not have enough working distance. If you are shooting nature subjects, a 150 - 180 macro is what you probably want.

If you decide to go the auxiliary filter route, get a one or two element achromatic filter - you'd have to get one of these:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87479-REG/Canon_2819A001_52mm_250D_Close_up_Lens.html

and one of these - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/809605-REG/sensei_sur_4952_49_52mm_step_up_ring.html

since the smallest close up filter Canon makes is 52mm.

You do realize that your lens gives you a magnification of 1:4 without any filters or extension tubes.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Give macro a try with a cheap set of extension tubes.

https://smile.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Macro-Extension-Extreme-Photography/dp/B005UJLITS/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1482838191&sr=8-10&keywords=extension+tubes+for+sony

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Both but for a close-up filter get a Canon 500D 0r a 250 D both are great glass

jr168

A true macro lens is the best way to go but if you are on a tight budget and just getting into macro, I would go with the extension tubes with your 55mm lens. The close up filters work best with a 70-200 zoom in my opinion.