Canon 500D dioptre on Nikon 105mmVR

Hi all,

I playing with close up lenses!

Canon do the 500D in a 58mm and then a 72mm diameter. The Nikon 105 has a 62mm thread. Do people use the 58 and a step down ring, or the 72mm and a step up?

Alternatively, does anyone have a Nikon 6T they aren't using?

All the best

Adam

Hi Adam,

alternatively you could give the Marumis a try: Marumi Achromat They are available with a 62mm thread.

I haven't used them under water yet, but someone else took a few really nice pictures with the Marumi Achromat +3.

Holger Schaum - Macro

Sebastian

Hi all,

 

I playing with close up lenses!

 

Canon do the 500D in a 58mm and then a 72mm diameter. The Nikon 105 has a 62mm thread. Do people use the 58 and a step down ring, or the 72mm and a step up?

 

Alternatively, does anyone have a Nikon 6T they aren't using?

 

All the best

 

Adam

Hi all,

 

I playing with close up lenses!

 

Canon do the 500D in a 58mm and then a 72mm diameter. The Nikon 105 has a 62mm thread. Do people use the 58 and a step down ring, or the 72mm and a step up?

 

Alternatively, does anyone have a Nikon 6T they aren't using?

 

All the best

 

Adam

I second the Marumi, but if you want to use the Canon, get the 72 and step up on the principle that the center of the lens is the "best" glass and with the smaller lens you get the possibility of some vignetting.

Bill

hey Adam

I've used the 58mm version with a 62->58mm step down ring with the 105mm VR on my D300, it worked perfectly fine.

I started off looking for a Nikon 6T, but then I couldn't think of any reason not to try the Canon diopters instead.

hope this helps

Do people use the 58 and a step down ring, or the 72mm and a step up?

 

 

 

Adam

I just purchased a CU72500D-72mm in the UK for about 80 GBP found it here

Hasn't arrived yet - but it was the best price that I found.

Paul C

Mine cost me a damn sight more than £80!

I use a 72mm - because it is then the correct size to fit on the Sigma 150mm F2.8 too.

Alex

I paid the equivalent of 55 GBP for the 58mm version, at B&H photo.

I didn't get the 72mm because I didn't need it, and it cost a lot more! (around 80 GBP).

Of course if I was shooting full-frame like Alex I'd consider the larger one for the sigma 150mm.

personally i got the 77mm version, its the pro standard filter size. this way it will fit on any lens i own cept my super tele. if you buy all filters in 77mm and get a series of cheap step down rings, you can't go wrong. can also use it on a super wide with a 77mm filter diameter behind a dome. though it vignettes below about 12mm on dx. ya never know what new lenses you might want to use this on in the future...

Mine just arrived and seems fine.

Paul C

As a folllow up:

I've got the 72mm version and a step down ring, and have used it on my 105mm with no problems. (on land)

I have the Subal type 3 ports, and had bored out my extension for the 105mm to cope with it's wider diameter. I mistakenly didn't do all my other extensions at the same time. So when I added a 15mm extension to accomodate the extra length of the 500d, it stuck on the lens.

I have now had them all bored out, so I'll get in and shoot some shots soon-I'll post the results!

Adam

Mine cost me a damn sight more than £80!

 

I use a 72mm - because it is then the correct size to fit on the Sigma 150mm F2.8 too.

 

Alex

£80 - Mercy! I use a 77mm B+W diopter which cost about $48 USD. You can get B+W step up rings for about $20 USD. B+W are quality filters AND use brass mountings. Bass does not seize like AL or plastic can. I also use the step up ring for my 77mm magic filter.

Bob

As promised-I finally managed to get the Cannon 500D wet! It is the 72mm version, with a step down ring to the 62mm threads on the lens.

I was using it with a Nikon 105mm VR and twin Inon strobes.

I found that I needed to add an additional 15mm extension to my port to give the dioptre room. My extensions are Subal type 3, so I had to bore them all out-I had already done so with my extension for the 105, but in order to add the extra 15mm, had to get them all done.

Both of these are uncropped. I think it shows just how sharp this combination is! I still need to think through the lighting a bit more-I am going to experiment with snoots a bit.

By the way. water temp was 8 degrees celsius, and air temps were about -2!

Adam

Excellent detail in both shots. You should feel very pleased with your efforts.

Nice to see you got close to the perch in the second shot as they are very hard to get close to in my neck of the woods.

Perch are very skittish fish, probably because they know exactly where they sit at the bottom of the food chain ladder.

By the way. water temp was 8 degrees celsius, and air temps were about -2!

 

Adam

Sounds like a good reason to try with rubber ducks and a swimming pool

Sounds like a good reason to try with rubber ducks and a swimming pool

Exactly. Every underwater photographer should have a rubber duckie, even though they need to be cable-tied to a lead weight!

Mine even has a mask and snorkel!

Adam, I would suspect that you could have taken both of those shots with the straight 105mm?

Alex

Perch are very skittish fish, probably because they know exactly where they sit at the bottom of the food chain ladder.

Ours are at inland diving centres - so they are very used to divers.

At the risk of being very I am never quite sure how they should be classified for wildlife photography competitions? They are kind of wild? Kind of not?

Alex

Aw shucks-now I know why things don't work- haven't got a rubber duck! At least there is one thing I can put on my Christmas list!!!

I think the use of cable ties and lead weights with a rubber duck probably ammounts to some form of animal cruelty at worst and bizarre behaviour at best!!!

Mike-these were taken in a swimming pool-it's about 11 acres! The heating isn't so good either!

Alex-I think you are right about these-I'll have to try! With the additional magnification of the dioptre-would I not expect more detail (and a larger subject) with it than without? The trout's cracks and grooves in its nose seem sharper and more detailed-or is this just me using the 105 better? I was very close to the trout-in fact many of the pictures I took, I'm too close and I think the composition of the shot has suffered. The trout are too big to get enough in frame when they are close! Here are some of the tighter ones of the perch-I haven't done any backscatter removal etc and they are again uncropped.

Probably a very interesting discussion for somewhere else-Inland diving centres are mostly artificial (in this case a quarry). The perch and roach that are in it are self sustaining breeding populations, but were introduced. The trout are stocked!

Thanks for all the comments and feedback

Adam

With the additional magnification of the dioptre-would I not expect more detail (and a larger subject) with it than without?

The dioptre will degrade image quality slightly, but a good dioptre like the Canon 500D minimises this loss. Furthermore, when the dioptre allows you to get closer and minimise the amount of water you are shooting through, you might gain something. Alex