Lens for close-up filter

[xathle]

Hello!

I am relatively new to photography, and have developed an interest in macro photography. However, the prices of macro lenses are too high for me to afford I was thinking of investing in a close-up filter instead, but I'm curious to know if it makes a big difference to use the filter with a prime lens or a zoom lens.

I have both the nikkor 18-105 vr lens (thread size 67mm) and the 50mm f1.8/D (52mm). What I believe is that the prime lens will be a better choice because from what I've read, light is very important in macro so the larger aperture will benefit macro photography cause of the bokeh and lighting, but the zoom lens has an advantage in being able to zoom right? So I'm not sure if the difference in lighting for the zoom lens and my prime makes a considerable difference for the inconvenience, if let's say I want to shoot moving objects like insects.

I just need a little advice so that I can decide whether to get the 52 or 67mm filter thanks!

 

[Rashkae]

With macro photography, your DOF is so thin that many people use f/8 or f/11 because they need some DOF. Yes, light is important, which is why you see macro photographers with complex strobe and diffuser setups. Therefore, you may not even use the benefit of the larger aperture, which is thinner DOF, not "bokeh". Bokeh is NOT background blur.

 

[xathle]

Ah I get what you mean! And thanks for clarifying the two terms, I always thought that the two terms were used interchangeably. So this means that I should get the filter for my 18-105 instead thank you!

 

[luckyorange]

Just get the raynox 250 and start practising, can use for both lens

 

[joe]

Why don't you get attachment to your kits len and it much more cheaper better getting a micro lens.Especially when you're new to photography and do you often need to use mico len.It cost very expensive for getting a micro len itself.If you're not sure about about what you want to get.Try to shop around at the camera retail shop.

 

[xathle]

I'm actually a little doubtful still about the raynox and I think I'll actually prefer something simpler like the filter. Plus the filter's even more affordable which makes it a perfect start for me to enter macro! And sorry joe, but I don't really get what you mean by attachment to my kit lens? Is the close up filter considered an attachment?

 

[SkyStrike]

I'm actually a little doubtful still about the raynox and I think I'll actually prefer something simpler like the filter. Plus the filter's even more affordable which makes it a perfect start for me to enter macro! And sorry joe, but I don't really get what you mean by attachment to my kit lens? Is the close up filter considered an attachment?

I believe there is a thread on the Raynox vs Reverse Macro vs Close up filter (e.g. hoya +xx). I'm currently using the Raynox 250, so far so good...compared to other screwed on close up filter, raynox can put on and take off easily... because with either close up filter or raynox, your focusing distance will be reduced to xx cm (mine is abt 12cm) and it will NOT focus ANYTHING beyond this number (<12cm or >12cm all cannot focus). So, during this time, the advantage of taking it off easily can be quite nice...