Cheap Macro Lenses (are they worth purchasing)????

[Trevormclay]

Hello, has anyone ever considered purchasing a macro lens such as these to use on a housing that is 67mm threaded?
The quality is probably not as great as the other brands but for 1/10th of the cost and getting multiple lenses it might be worth to purchase and bring along just incase.

What do you guys think ?

67mm Macro Close UP 1 2 4 10 Lens Filter KIT FOR Nikon Canon Sony 67mm Lens | eBay

 

[rob1967]

These lenses are meant to be used as a "dry diopter", i.e., one would normally attach it directly on the lens like a filter. They can be useful dry (on your lens inside the housing), as it will allow your lens to focus closer. I have found them useful for use on a kit lens where the minimum focusing distance is a bit long compared to a dedicated macro lens. I have found that a +2 strength is about right. You do loose infinity focus (which you don't really need underwater), but with a +2 diopter you have a useful working distance for underwater.

I have never heard of anyone using a dry diopter on the housing. The diopter will not be as strong in water as in air (because the diffraction index of water is closer to glass than air). Also, I suspect the metal ring of the diopter will corrode if used in salt water. But you can go ahead and give it a try, and report back!

The nice thing about a dedicated wet diopter, especially with a flip adapter, is the versatility it affords. You can have it flipped out of the way, and only flip it in place when you want to photograph something small.

 

[fmerkel]

I use a set just like that for my Oly EPL-1 as a wet diopter. Mine are Agfa but they look pretty much the same, I suspect they are.
I also have a Subsea +5 diopter ($150 at the time) I use with the stock 14-42 lens. Frankly, in real life use I can't tell much difference. They are lighter, and are easier to scratch.
My wife has a $400 60mm prime lens....with that lens you can tell the difference! Obviously she's stuck with it on a dive and it cost a lot more.

 

[Trevormclay]

These lenses are meant to be used as a "dry diopter", i.e., one would normally attach it directly on the lens like a filter. They can be useful dry (on your lens inside the housing), as it will allow your lens to focus closer. I have found them useful for use on a kit lens where the minimum focusing distance is a bit long compared to a dedicated macro lens. I have found that a +2 strength is about right. You do loose infinity focus (which you don't really need underwater), but with a +2 diopter you have a useful working distance for underwater.

I have never heard of anyone using a dry diopter on the housing. The diopter will not be as strong in water as in air (because the diffraction index of water is closer to glass than air). Also, I suspect the metal ring of the diopter will corrode if used in salt water. But you can go ahead and give it a try, and report back!

The nice thing about a dedicated wet diopter, especially with a flip adapter, is the versatility it affords. You can have it flipped out of the way, and only flip it in place when you want to photograph something small.

Thanks I did order the set because frankly for the price I'm intrigued to see if it will work or be a complete failure (but for 20$ you can be a failure!). My thought process is that even if its less powerful underwater if you use the +10 it will act as maybe a +6 or +7. Still well above my requirements. I do like the idea of a flip adapter however thats another 90$ on top of the lens that costs (in Canada) 200+ tax and shipping for a Subsee +5. I am going on a trip in March and I will inform this board if it worked out not. My idea is to put the +10 in my BCD jacket or Wetsuit pocket i installed. It won't be as handy but might still provide a good possibility for those wanting to go Macro on a budget!

 

[fmerkel]

Weird how much those little flip up gizmos cost. IMO they are worth 1/4 the asking price.
My diopter setup is simply screwed into a modified lens cap ($50 for that stupid thing, worth $15). I can pop it off if I want to use the regular lens. It hangs on a string which is a bit of a nuisance where the flip up would be nice.

 

[DazedAndConfuzed]

Thanks I did order the set because frankly for the price I'm intrigued to see if it will work or be a complete failure (but for 20$ you can be a failure!). My thought process is that even if its less powerful underwater if you use the +10 it will act as maybe a +6 or +7. Still well above my requirements. I do like the idea of a flip adapter however thats another 90$ on top of the lens that costs (in Canada) 200+ tax and shipping for a Subsee +5. I am going on a trip in March and I will inform this board if it worked out not. My idea is to put the +10 in my BCD jacket or Wetsuit pocket i installed. It won't be as handy but might still provide a good possibility for those wanting to go Macro on a budget!

I had a brain freeze and ordered one of those cheap macro set because I was going on a trip in a couple of weeks, thinking a reduced magnification is better than no magnification and the RX100 needs all the help it can get. When I got the set and tried it out, there were virtually no magnification at all. I searched around the interweb and found my old posts explaining why it wouldn't work. It is because the index of refraction of water is almost the same as those regular glass, thus it it is a lens made out of salt water when used in a fresh water environment. I tried to screw 2 diopters together (I got the one that showed the +10 diopter having a thick ring, thus allowing it to be stacked, but it had a very thin ring, thus it was not stackable), hoping the air layer will refract the light more, but water soon leaked in there. Not sure if it leaked through the threads or the lens, but I nixed the whole idea.