Can Macro filter work as tele-zoom?

[blacksheep]

Hi, this is my first post and I am hoping that some one could help me out with choosing a new gear to purchase.

Currently I have NIKON D90 with the kit lens of 18-105mm F3.5-5.6. dim.67mm

I would like to buy a filter or lens that enable me achieving:

1. zoom-in more to an object in far distance
2. zoom-in more to moon
3. take a closer-up (I cannot take a photo when the lens is too close to an object now)
4. photograph cloud formation

I did some research myself, and I have a feeling that I probably need:

- tele-zoom lens for 1 and 2
- macro filter for 3
- polarizing filter for 4

Am I correct? It seems I need the zoom lens the most, but my concern is a weight and a cost.
Maybe a stupid question, but can "macro" filter work as zoom when photo-shooting something far away?

Thanks a lot for your help or any suggestions in this.

[Tringa]

Hello Blacksheep and welcome to CiC.

Your assumptions about lenses/filters to achieve what you want are correct. However, whether the results you get are what you want depends on what you buy.

Taking your list in order.

1. The size of the zoom lens you need depends on what you want to do. If you are into wildlife then I think you would need to be looking at a zoom with a longest focal length of at least 300mm. I don't take many wildlife shots mainly because my 70-210mm lens doesn't get me close enough most of the time. However, I find a lens of this range is fine for more general use. I'm sure others will be along and provide more detailed advice.

2. Same applies to the Moon, only more so. You can get good shots of the Moon with almost any lens but detailed images need big focal lengths. Probably so big that the cost would be prohibitive.

Another option is to go for a smaller zoom lens and a teleconverter. A teleconverter has the effect of increasing the apparent focal length of the lens by a factor, so a 200mm lens with a 1.7x converter produces the same image as a 340mm lens. However, there is a downside. The image is unlikely to be as good as that from a 340mm lens and you lose at least one f stop, so a 200mm f4 lens becomes f5.6, and possibly less. However, there could be a cost and weight advantage.

3. A close up lens will allow you to get a bigger image of small objects. The advantage is they are one the cheapest ways of achieving close ups but again the image quality may not be what you want. There are other ways, eg extension tubes and macro lenses but, in general, getting better quality images and having a more convenient set up tends to cost more.

4. A polarising filter will darken the blue of the sky and therefore the contrast with clouds can be increased. However, the effect is greatest at about 90 degrees to the sun, but it can be a useful filter for more general use as it will help to reduce reflections from non-metallic surfaces.

Have a look at the tutorials and the discussion categories on this site for more information.

By the way, if you want, you can edit your profile on here to include your real name and location.

Hope this has helped, a least a little.

Dave

[blacksheep]

Thanks a lot for your reply, Tringa. It is very helpful.
As for 1 and 2, I am not sure if I need a very long zoom lens. I'm simply not satisfied with my current lens (18-105mm) when, for example shooting a person/a cat from distance. I don't want the person/the cat to notice me, but I do want them zoomed-up more in a frame of an image. For the moon-shooting, I don't think I want to get the detailed craters on the moon, but just want to get a bit more close than I can do maximum now.
Now it makes me wonder if having the lens like yours (70-210mm) would already make enough difference to make these requirements above.
About the option of "a smaller zoom lens and a teleconverter", may I ask what you mean by "a smaller zoom lens"? Do you refer to my current lens, or...? Sounds like a good option for me, but then again the less quality will be a concern.

As for the polarizing filter, I was trying to get one for me, but drowned into a number of choices you can make in the below shopping site... if you click on "Filters" - "Polarize filter", you will get about 15 types of the polarize filter..

http://www.cameranu.nl/en/filters/po...-filter/h98_r7

Do you know any website that explains the difference in all these filters simply?

Thanks a lot for your help! (if you can...)

[Manfred M]

First, let me respond to your question on the polarizing filter;

Your D90 requires something called a circular polarizing filter, otherwise the autofocus and metering will not work. The other thing you need to be aware of is the filter size of your lens. Based on the information you post, it uses 67mm filter thread. After that it really depends on which manufacturer you pick. To a large extent, as with anything else photographic you get what you pay for. From the web link you Hoya and B+W are both very reputable filter manufacturers and I would not hesitate recommending either. You really don't need to go to a Käsemann style; these are sealed to prevent mould growth between the filter elements. I own both Käsemann and standard desgins, and from a performance standpoint, really have not noticed any real difference.

Soligor used to be a major 3rd party lens supplier, with some optical manufacturing capacity. I suspect that these filters are likely sourced from a 3rd party and rebranded. Travor, I've never heard of.

I don't own a teleconverter (but do own a D90). Nikon does not recommend the use of teleconverters on their zoom lenses. I personaly do not like teleconverters; you lose up to two or three stops of speed when you use them, and optically, they are generally not as good as a dedicated lens. The Nikon teleconverters are quite expensive and you will find that the 55-200mm or 55-300mm will cost you less money. If you are looking at another telephoto, if you are planning to hand-hold, I suggest you look at the stabilized VR lenses.

Shooting pictures of the moon? How many times are you planning to do that? Is it really worth the money you will be spending?

[blacksheep]

Hi GrumpyDiver, thanks for your reply too!
Good point, I don't think I would shoot the moon that often, but I do want to get closer-ups of an object in far distance.
I understood that a macro filter or a converter makes the zoom-in or close-up possible, but they always come with the quality-issue.. If I think about the quality, I should probably know how much I want to zoom-in, and buy a prime lens for it. What do you think?

As for the polarizing filter, I think I am getting to know it better.. thanks a lot for all the information!
I would probably go for Hoya Circulair Polarising 67mm Regular. Seems most inexpensive

[rpcrowe]

I am going to try to keep my recommendations as inexpensive as possible...

Your needs:
1. zoom-in more to an object in far distance
2. zoom-in more to moon
3. take a closer-up (I cannot take a photo when the lens is too close to an object now)
4. photograph cloud formation

#'s 1 & 2 are the same problem. You will need a longer focal length to achieve a larger subject size. There are many telephoto lenses on the market which will zoom from 55-70mm to 200-300mm. These lenses come in all prices. Normally, the better lenses are the most expensive. I am not that familiar with Nikon mount lenses to make any specific recommendions, except don't automatically exclude third party lenses such as Tamron and Sigma. I would strongly recommend that your lens in this focal length include some sort of a shake control system (VR for Nikon, IS for Canon, VC for Tamron, etc.) The shake control will make your lens far more versatile by enabling you to shoot hand-held in lower light levels. As far as shooting wildlife: 300mm is probably the absolute minimum you should be looking at. Photographing the moon can be done with any focal length lens but, the longer focal lengths will allow a larger moon image.

Tele extenders are not really a viable alternative when using your lens. Nikon makes a 1.7x extender and other companies offer less expensive extenders. Whether an extender will physically fit and work with your present lens is one consideration while the reducation of image quality is a another very serious concern. My Canon extender will only effectively work with some of my top-line lenses.

#3: There are "close-up filters" available in a variety of price ranges but, they all degrade the image to one degree or another. Just how much they degrade and if the result in one that you can live with; is up to thelens you are using and the quailty imagery you demand. As in lenses, you get what you pay for when purchasing a close-up filter or filter set. Extension tubes and dedicated macro lenses are the way to go. However, for flower and many other subjects, extreme close-ups are not always required. Often the minimum focus distance of a tele zoom lens will suffice. Some tele zooms have the term "macro" added to their title. This is an advertising ploy. They are not really macro lenses but, rather zoom lenses which will focus fairly close. However, these might just be close enough for your needs.

#4: This is probably the easiest and possibly least expensive fix to your problem. A polarizing filter will darken the ky, reduce reflections on non metallic surfaces and generally improve many images. Again, you get what you pay for. Multi-coated Circular Polarizing Filter is the way to go. Get the best you can afford. Less expensive, non-coated filters can reduce image quality significantly. It is false economy to purchase a cheap CPL filter in trying to improve your imagery only to reduce the quality of that imagery due to that filter.

[blacksheep]

Hello rpcrowe, thank you for your reply on my questions too!

I am going to have to write some very beginner's questions here..

About 1&2, whatever lens I buy, should I stick to the lens that has a diameter 67mm? I also noticed that those tele-zoom lenses are not fast lens. Well there are some lenses with a big zoom with smaller F number but they are really expensive.

I'm slightly declining to a prime lens, which maybe a bit more affordable....

As for 3, has anybody used "macro filter" and not "macro lens"? Does it really make a quality less?

For 4, I'm a bit lost after reading a feedback between GrumpyDiver and rpcrowe...
Can I also ask what the difference between polarizing filters and UV filters? Are they the same thing?

[tonyjr]

Close-up Lenses and Extension Tubes
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/closeuplenses.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm

CPLs
http://dpfwiw.com/polarizer.htm

diopters 1-5 read each one by clicking on it
https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecom...y.aspx?CID=672

1 & 2 - I am now sticking with 77 mm and 72 mm . It just costs to much to buy good filters for each size .
--
You will learn more by using a prime - the only 2 primes I use anymore are the 50 1.4 and the 180 macro .
I use the 17-55 , then the 10-22 and then the 70-200 .
--
I have a set of diopters from 1 to 5 [ b + w ] , extension tubes and extenders . Yes , there is a quality difference between them and a macro - how much depends on your skill , what you do with the shots [ printing a 4X 6 is a lot different from printing a 17 X 22 . ] - by the time you buy what you think you need - you would be better off buying a used 120 , 150 or 180 f 5.6 . From 200 and up on ebay if you watch for a couple of weeks .
-- CPL
The UV and CPL are 2 different filters .
The UV is used to block out UV rays on film cameras - most of us use them as protective filters - They are easier to clean / change than a lens .
The CPL is used to polarize the light - works best at 90 degree to sun . They are easier to adjust with a rubber hood . They can also be used as an ND filter . Basically they make blues bluer and greens greener .
There are different opinions on everything . I would do a search on these subjects and book mark what makes sense to you . Make a folder and read at least 3 times - different days .
Good luck - if something does not make sense to to ask again or go to a different site and ask same question .

[Manfred M]

Hello rpcrowe, thank you for your reply on my questions too!

I am going to have to write some very beginner's questions here..

About 1&2, whatever lens I buy, should I stick to the lens that has a diameter 67mm? I also noticed that those tele-zoom lenses are not fast lens. Well there are some lenses with a big zoom with smaller F number but they are really expensive.

I'm slightly declining to a prime lens, which maybe a bit more affordable....

As for 3, has anybody used "macro filter" and not "macro lens"? Does it really make a quality less?

For 4, I'm a bit lost after reading a feedback between GrumpyDiver and rpcrowe...
Can I also ask what the difference between polarizing filters and UV filters? Are they the same thing?

Reading what Richard wrote, he and I say pretty well the same thing, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes it. Trying to straighten things out.

1. I would never let the diameter of the filter determine the lens I would buy. I buy the lens first based on what I want it to do and then I determine which, if any, accessories like filters I will buy for it. I own three different lenses that cannot take any filters at all (these are all extreme wide-angle lenses). In some cases I will use a larger filter with a "step down ring" so that I can use a filter designed for a larger diameter on a smaller diameter lens.

2. Yes, high end zoom lenses (and prime lenses) can be extremely expensive. These are targeted at the professional or high-end amateur market for users that use full-frame cameras. Lenses from crop frame (DX in Nikon terms) tend to be much more reasonable. Mid to lower end lenses are likely to be just as fast as the 18mm-105mm you already own, so I'm not quite sure what your concern regarding lens speed is. Some of the lower end prime lenses are quite inexpensive, but on the other hand, Nikon, Sigma and Tamron all make cost effective lenses that do not cost a fortune.

3. I think the best way to explain what the "macro filter" does is to have you look through a magnifying glass, because that is essentially what one of these things really is. If you look through the centre of a magnifying glass, the centre portion is fairly sharp, but the edges tend to be a bit blurry. This is really what happens when you use one of these supplemental lenses. A true macro lens is designed to be sharp throughout the focal range. I personally cannot comment on how well the "macro filters" perform as I have never used one, and have very limited experience with macro lenses. It is not a part of photography I have ever been all that interested in.

4. A UV filter removes the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. I'm not sure of how effective they are with digital cameras, as these tend to have a UV filter built into their optical system. Most photographers use these to protect the front element of their lens. A polarizaing filter removes light that is polarized in a particular direction. This reduces glare from non-metallic objects and darkerns the sky, with maximum effect at 90 degrees from the direction of the sun. You can get "banding" in shots that include the sky in wide angle shots when you use a polarizing filter.

[tonyjr]

The 1st thing I look at is what I want to do . Next is price , I cannot afford that , what is next I can afford and will work . What else do I need if I buy it ?
Before I buy a lens , I buy at least 2 UVs , a ksm cpl , a rubber hood , plastic if it does not come with one and at least an ND 3 . When I pick up lens I am ready .
What I have now is -
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , efs 18-55 IS , EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 35 2 , 50 @1.8 , 50 1.4 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS , Quantaray lens 70-300 macro , Sigma 135 - 400 , 180 MACRO , 1.4 X II ,
2X III , Life Size converter , UV , KSM , rubber hoods and ND filters for all , kenko auto tubes , EF 25 .
If I considered a lenses with 62 , 67 , 82 mm , I would have to add at least 500 to the price .
This does not even consider the space in bag the different size filters would take .
Right now my main bag has the 10-22 , 17-55 and the 70-200 mk II in it with the 2 X III . Filter stackers cut down on filter space . Throw in laptop , hoods , chargers , cleaning kit , 1st aid kit and mini table tripod - then try to get on plane .
Bag # 2 is for the primes
Bag #3 is for the 28-135 , 35-350 , 70-300 - 72 mm and the 135-400 [ yes it is also 77 mm used it before I got the 70-200 ]
My 4th bag has the flashes , led lights , brackets , cords , chargers etc .
Either the 7D or XTI is around my neck [ OH - I know the no money syndrome - I saved for a year and still used a CC for last 1000 for 70-200 and 7D

[Inkanyezi]

As for 3, has anybody used "macro filter" and not "macro lens"? Does it really make a quality less?

The term closeup lens is often used for what you call a macro filter and some regard it more correct. However, I will use macro filter here for the sake of clarity, not to confuse it with the lens itself (objectief en Nederlands, ik geloof dat men ook lens zegt),

I have used macro filters a lot, and I am not at all disappointed by their performance, even though I also have other options for closeup work.

All macro filters introduce optical errors, and those errors are most prominent at large angles from the optical axis, hence toward the edges of the image, and to a larger degree with a large angle of view. Therefore, macro filters work best with rather long focal lengths. 105 mm on a crop sensor is quite narrow enough to make macro filters perform well. They can be used for closeups down to about half life size with no noticeable loss of image quality, as long as the subject photographed does not need exact rectangular reproduction or flat field of focus. Hence they are unsuitable for postage stamps and similar, while insects, flowers and other natural objects, where a flat field of focus or sharp edges of the image are not essential, can be excellently rendered.

A couple of precautions are needed though. If you wish to get closer than about 30 cm from the tip of your lens, the macro filter should be achromatic, i.e. a composite macro filter with two different glass types that are glued together. Those are more expensive than simple macro filters, but perform better. However, with macro filter strength of up to +3 diopters, you may expect good performance also from simple meniscus macro filters, which are far cheaper. Both the corrected macro filters and the simple ones share other distortions, as coma and curvature of focal plane. Therefore not even a corrected macro filter will perform well with a short focal length of your lens or for flat subjects as stamps or other reproductive work. They all perform best from about 70 mm focal length and up and for natural three-dimensional subjects.

There are substantial advantages with macro filters compared to extension tubes (macro tubes), whether those extension tubes carry electrical connections or not. Unlike when using the tubes, the camera works exactly as normal in all respects except one, distance, when a macro filter is attached. AF can be used to fine tune focus within the distances that are possible with a particular macro filter, and also stabilisation works as when no filter is attached. As there is no loss of aperture, the AF system works optimally, which it might not do when extensions are used. Hence macro filters are much more comfortable to use than extension tubes. Extension tubes however permit larger reproduction scale with good quality, and the scale increases with shorter focal length, finally making the extension tube useless with very short focal length that makes focus fall inside the lens itself.

So as it is not very costly, my suggestion is that you get one, only one, macro filter, and that you take either a +3 diopters simple one or a +4 or +5 diopters achromatic macro filter. The image scale may be adjusted by zooming with your lens, and the distance is fairly limited, the longest distance where you can get focus being the inverse of the diopter figure in metres. Hence a +3 macro filter has a 33 cm focal length and AF can fine tune focus from 33 cm down to about 20 cm from the macro filter. With a +4 your farthest distance is 25 cm from the macro filter, and with +5 diopters, your longest focusing distance will be 20 cm from the macro filter. AF can fine tune somewhat closer. To find the maximum focus distance fairly easy, I suggest using a piece of string of the right length that is attached so that you can stretch it out toward your subject.

The image below is taken with two +6 diopters macro filters stacked, hence +12 diopters and a compact camera. In the right edge of the image, the millimetre markings on a steel tape measure are seen. The flowers, that are very small, do not appear very sharp, mostly due to the very shallow depth of field; the tape measure tells a bit more about actual image quality from that combo. The macro filters were scavenged from binocular objectives. The magnification is a bit extreme for macro filters, but it shows that it is possible to get reasonable quality. The main problem when working this close is not the optical quality, but rather to find the subject and get it into focus and hold everything steady enough to get a sharp picture. Also depth of field is a major issue when working very close.



The next image is taken with a simple macro filter of +3 diopters on the same compact camera, with an angle similar to your 105 mm lens Hence it shows about what you might get with a +3 diopters macro filter attached to your zoom.

[blacksheep]

Thanks Roy, I'm going to check the links you provided. I am not familiar with "extenders" or "tubes", but I will study what they are. Let me quickly thank you for your reply now.

[Manfred M]

If you are looking at getting into macro photography you should add the following to your shopping list:

1. A good tripod, so that you can frame your image. Handholding for this type of work is going to be tough. While I don't do macro photography, I have done closeup work (flowers and plants). My preference is to work with a ball-head, rather than a 3-axis type;

2. While you can work around it, look at getting a cable release for your camera as well. Taking a closeup shot and not moving the camera while pressing the shutter release is a pain.

[blacksheep]

Hi Manfred, thanks again for sticking to my thread

1. I was stupid not to know that I do not have to stick to the diameter 67 mm when choosing a lens. I thought my camera (NIKON D90) can only be fit with this diameter. It is sometimes difficult to find out what lens would fit with my camera (without using adapter. just simply what fits with the camera)
In any case I should choose a lens first and then go for the filter.

2. I find my lens not fast enough. One day I was photo-shooting my friend, dancing in the low light and it was very difficult shooting her movements. I thought it would make it even more difficult for the active photo-shooting if I get the lens like 70-200 mm. Another concern I had was a weight. I already find the current total weight pretty heavy :'(

3. Clear explanation. Thanks

4. I already have a protection filter (it says "MC filter") so I guess I wouldn't go for UV filters then. Not sure if this one removes the ultraviolet (probably not), but I think it's ok for now...
About the confusion I had, I thought you meant there is no big difference between expensive polarizing filters and inexpensive ones very much, and Richard meant opposite. Sorry you both meant the same.
May I ask what the "Multi-coated" polarizing filter?

[blacksheep]

Hello Urban,
Thanks for your explanation. I think I know a lot about marco filters now..
I did not know there is a variation in diopter. I think I want +3 diopter now
Also good to know that it works best with about 70 mm+ focal length.

I am not familiar with extensions and tubes (in fact I heard those names here for the first time), so it will take me a little while to understand fully what you wrote. Please let me thank you for your time for now

[blacksheep]

Hi again Manfred!

Let me tell you this, I have a tripod given as a goodbye gift from my previous company but the locks get loosen so often that I have to screw in to fix it every time...! I should probably get a new one. I also thought a ball-head nicer than 3-axis that I have now

Now I come to think of it, I am not that into the macro macro photography. I find the current lens annoying when shooting the food. I want to get closer, but I can't.

I was also thinking of buying the remote control or release shutter Especially because my tripod is very unstable at the moment.. :-P

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred, thanks again for sticking to my thread

1. I was stupid not to know that I do not have to stick to the diameter 67 mm when choosing a lens. I thought my camera (NIKON D90) can only be fit with this diameter. It is sometimes difficult to find out what lens would fit with my camera (without using adapter. just simply what fits with the camera)
In any case I should choose a lens first and then go for the filter.

2. I find my lens not fast enough. One day I was photo-shooting my friend, dancing in the low light and it was very difficult shooting her movements. I thought it would make it even more difficult for the active photo-shooting if I get the lens like 70-200 mm. Another concern I had was a weight. I already find the current total weight pretty heavy :'(

3. Clear explanation. Thanks

4. I already have a protection filter (it says "MC filter") so I guess I wouldn't go for UV filters then. Not sure if this one removes the ultraviolet (probably not), but I think it's ok for now...
About the confusion I had, I thought you meant there is no big difference between expensive polarizing filters and inexpensive ones very much, and Richard meant opposite. Sorry you both meant the same.
May I ask what the "Multi-coated" polarizing filter?

1. When looking at a lens, anything labelled "F-mount" will work on your camera body. This means all current Nikon lenses will work as well as lenses from Tokina, Tamrom and Sigma (and others) that have this lens mount. If you are looking at one of these third-party lens manufacturers, who cater to a number of different camera designs (typically Canon, Sony and Pentax as well as Nikon), make sure you get the correct mount for your camera.

2. As previously mentioned, we own the D90 (and the D800). The first telephoto lens I bought was the relatively inexpense Nikkor f/4-5.6 55mm-200mm. I later bought the expensive f/2.8 70-200mm, not so much for the speed, but rather the shallow depth of field. This lens is a professional FX lens and costs more than 7 times as much as the less expensive lens (if is the most expensive lens that I own). It is a heavy lens, and does wonderful work. I use it quite often. If I go for a hike, I will often take the cheaper lens, because it is so light.

If you are finding the lens too slow and cannot get acceptable results with your current lens at high ISO settings, additional lighting is a good solution (flash). Existing light photography can be limiting.

3. There are differences between cheap and more expensive polarizers. The MC on your existing protective filter stand for mulit-coated, this means it has several layers of thin film coating to reduce reflections, much like on your photographic lens. A MC or multi-coated polarizer will be better than an uncoated or single coated one. Hoya, that you seem to like are a very good filter maker, and I don't think you will be disappointed with their products.

There are other types of CP filters that offer features that cost money that you don't need. In the link you attached to another one of your postings, the Käsemann design was one of the listed designs. This design costs more because it uses features that you might not consider important for photography in the Netherlands. Circular polarizing filters have two elements, a fixed (linear polarizing) element and a rotating (circular polarizing) element. Moisture can get in between these two elements in a humid environment and you can get mould growing between them This is typically an issue in the tropics, and the Käsemann design protects against this problem, but spending money for a feature you don't need, is not necessarily money well spent.

[tonyjr]

I should probably get a new one. I also thought a ball-head nicer than 3-axis that I have now - a 3 axis head is good for panorama shots [ 2 or 3 shots together ] sticking shots together is called stitching or for following a guy running straight or side ways .
A ball head is good for following a bird that goes up / down both have their own uses .
Macro to most of use means a prime lens [ 28 , 35 , 50 , 100 mm ] generally a 1 to 1 relationship .
A zoom is a variable lens like a 10-22 , 17-55 , 70-200 .
When a zoom lens says macro [ 28-135 macro , 70-300 macro ] it just means it focuses a little closer .
Tripods - YOU can steady one by hanging weight from center column . Tight fitting rubber bands , O-rings put next to joints can help .
There are 2 lines of thought about using them . One is a leg between your 2 legs ant the other is the third leg pointed at what you are shooting .
I always put the camera strap over my neck when using a tripod . I also have a quick release plate so camera come off tripod when I move . Don't leave camera and tripod by them selves .
MC on a filter means multi coated . The coatings are for scratch resistance , flare , ghosting , easier cleaning - probably 5 or 6 other things so company can say we are better

[Inkanyezi]

Extension tubes, also sometimes called macro tubes, are simple extensions that are put between the lens and the camera body. By putting the lens farther away from the sensor, they focus the lens at a closer distance. They do not themselves introduce any optical errors, but they may put the lens in a position where its correction is not optimal, particularly zoom or wide angle lenses may become less sharp or show more pronounced distortion when an extension is used.

They work best with a prime lens that has just one focal length, preferrably of symmetrical construction. At very close distances, also wide angle lenses or zoom lenses may be used turned end for end, so that the normally rear end faces the subject and the "front end" faces the sensor. To facilitate this, there are adapters, reversal rings, that fit into the filter thread of the lens and the bayonet mount of the camera. This setup will be completely manual, and on a Nikon, an auto lens may be stopped down by actuating the small lever inside its mount. This is tricky and may be facilitated by cutting a suitable piece of cardboard or plastic to insert beside the lever. Focusing then is done by moving the camera into position and slightly rocking it back and forth to find focus by looking in the viewfinder or at the LV screen.

Even "automatic" extension tubes are rather difficult to use, mainly because it is difficult to find focus, but with the lens oriented in the normal way, AF and the focus confirmation in the viewfinder may be functional. However, in the viewfinder of DSLR cameras, it is difficult to really see where focus is best. Hence the focus confirmation lamp is your best help for focusing when using an extension tube. With the lens reversed, the aperture mostly is too small for focusing aids to work well, and at large magnification it is very difficult to find the subject and to get it into focus, as the field of view is very small, and depth of field extremely shallow. This is common at large magnification no matter how it is accomplished, so it is something micro-/macrophotographers have to live with. There are props that can be used for still objects, as X/Y focusing racks to move the camera setup or the subject, and many DYI solutions exist, including radio clips and similar.

A DSLR camera of today does not have optimal focusing aids for extreme closeup work; the best contenders being Sony NEX cameras with focus peaking, a feature that blinks the focused areas on the screen or in the viewfinder.

The easiest to use closeup accessories are firsthand real macro lenses, and secondly a medium long zoom lens with macro filters, as both can be used with AF, which makes hand-held shooting possible. But it is not easy to shoot hand-held, so a better option is to use some kind of support. I mostly use a very low table tripod or a bean bag for low angle work, as when shooting small flowers. My camera has a tiltable LCD monitor where critical focusing is possible, and that is worth a lot when shooting from uncomfortable positions and in odd angles. Many of my closeups of flowers are shot with an old enlarging lens and extension tubes. The lens does not have a focusing helix, but I move the camera back and forth to find focus, using the LCD monitor. The image below is taken with a Rodenstock Trinar enlarging lens and extension tubes on a µ4/3 camera, Panasonic Lumix G1. The flower, lamium purpureum (purple deadnettle (NL paarse dovenetel, ES lamio púrpura u ortiga roja)), is about 5 cm high, and the individual flowers are about the size of a match head. I used a bean bag directly on the ground as support and moved the camera into position, with focus and composition found on the LCD monitor. I do not have a cable release or remote, so I use the self timer set to 2 seconds in order not to touch the camera when the picture is taken.

[blacksheep]

1. When looking at a lens, anything labelled "F-mount" will work on your camera body. This means all current Nikon lenses will work as well as lenses from Tokina, Tamrom and Sigma (and others) that have this lens mount. If you are looking at one of these third-party lens manufacturers, who cater to a number of different camera designs (typically Canon, Sony and Pentax as well as Nikon), make sure you get the correct mount for your camera.

2. As previously mentioned, we own the D90 (and the D800). The first telephoto lens I bought was the relatively inexpense Nikkor f/4-5.6 55mm-200mm. I later bought the expensive f/2.8 70-200mm, not so much for the speed, but rather the shallow depth of field. This lens is a professional FX lens and costs more than 7 times as much as the less expensive lens (if is the most expensive lens that I own). It is a heavy lens, and does wonderful work. I use it quite often. If I go for a hike, I will often take the cheaper lens, because it is so light.

If you are finding the lens too slow and cannot get acceptable results with your current lens at high ISO settings, additional lighting is a good solution (flash). Existing light photography can be limiting.

3. There are differences between cheap and more expensive polarizers. The MC on your existing protective filter stand for mulit-coated, this means it has several layers of thin film coating to reduce reflections, much like on your photographic lens. A MC or multi-coated polarizer will be better than an uncoated or single coated one. Hoya, that you seem to like are a very good filter maker, and I don't think you will be disappointed with their products.

There are other types of CP filters that offer features that cost money that you don't need. In the link you attached to another one of your postings, the Käsemann design was one of the listed designs. This design costs more because it uses features that you might not consider important for photography in the Netherlands. Circular polarizing filters have two elements, a fixed (linear polarizing) element and a rotating (circular polarizing) element. Moisture can get in between these two elements in a humid environment and you can get mould growing between them This is typically an issue in the tropics, and the Käsemann design protects against this problem, but spending money for a feature you don't need, is not necessarily money well spent.

Wow. More replies…thank you!

1. Thanks for letting me know that I should look for the lenses with “F-mount”. I noticed that cameranu.nl does mention such thing, wheares foka.nl does not specify that. I will look at the site that comes with this info.

2. Yes. I started realizing a lens like f/2.8 70-200mm is a dream lens. Very expensive too, indeed :O
It is so great that I should shut up about the weight 

About ISO, I would like to avoid highering as much as possible. I’ve just printed a night photo that was shooted with ISO400 into 20 x 30, and the result was very grainy. I could already see it was not good on the screen.
I am also just learning about how to use the flash. Yesterday I learned about bouncing or diffusing the flash, and it was interesting! I could use it in some situations.
What did you want to photograph when you bought f/4-5.6 55mm-200mm?
One more question, do you think a prime lens suits for landscape photography too?

4. I see! Multi-coated, it is. When they say “Regular”, does this mean the filter is not particularly coated?

About Käsemann, indeed it may not be very important. Netherlands is a very dry country :P