This weekend I took the time to compare the results of macro photos achieved with a real 1:1 macro lens (a AF Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8), my father in law bought last week at the camera bourse and the kit lense Nikkor AF-S DX VR 18-55 1:3,5-5,6G with a +10 close up lens, which I bought there, too. I used my Nikon D90, a tripod and a normal indoor floor lamp. I did not use any flash or special illumination technique.

The Subjects: I used three flowers as subject, a cyclamen (Alpenveilchen), an amaryllis and an orchid.

The AF Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8: This lense is a few years old, don’t know how many, but it was built for 35mm film and not for DX cameras. But it works great with the D90, including the autofocus and automatic. Formerly this is a f/2.8 - 32 lens, but this depends on the focus. The range is huge, so this may become f/5 - 57 dependent on how near the focused subject is. This lense is the predecessor of the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED and it is supposed to do a 1:1 image.

AF Micro Nikkor 105mm results

I added the f numbers to the file name so that you can compare the depth of field, too.

The +10 close up filter: Having in mind that the +10 close up filter costs about 10 or 20 EUR and the macro lens about 400, the results in conjunction with the Nikkor 18-55 are really great. Of course you have to got much closer as the focal length is shorter. But you almost get a 1:1 of the subject.

+10 close up filter results

I used different f stops here to be able to compare the depth of field with the macro lens results, too.

Conclusion: To be honest, I don’t see so much difference between the images taken with the macro lens and the images taken with the close up filter. There is a bit of difference, the close up filter produces more color fringes in the out of focus edges than the macro does. And the macro lens of course does have more advantages: You can keep a distance of about 10-20cm, with the close up filter in front of the 55mm lens you have to get really close: a few centimeters. And, of course, you can use the macro lens for landscape photography or, even better, as a fast and good portrait lens. You don’t have to screw a filter on and off if you get closer.

The Bokeh of the close up filter is unexpectedly nice, I think. There is not much difference in comparison with the macro lens. I really would like to hear about your opinions regarding macro photography using standard lenses with powerful close up filters.

The maximum depth of field of the macro lens using the minimal aperture seems to be slightly deeper than the depth of field which can be achieved by the normal lens with the close up filter. This can be a reason to use a macro lens.

Finally: Casually I noticed that the diameter of the macro lens is the same than the 18-55 lens and I tried to put the close up filter in front of the macro. You can — well, you have to — get really, really close (about 1 cm), having a focal length of 105mm and I think this is quite more than 100% of the real subject!

Macro lens with close up filter

Those photos are not cropped, just resized. The depth of field is so small that I had to close the aperture as much as possible to get at least one or two millimeters of focus. The real size of the stamina of the amaryllis is about 5mm. Quite impressive.

More: I did not try any extension tube yet. But what I really want to try one day is a retro adapter (or reverse adapter).