TIP - XF 70-300 and close-up lenses

Hi,

A quick tip FYI on the 70-300..... the result of some experimentation. I sometimes use close-up lenses on tele-zooms. They increase magnification without seeming to lose as much light as the TC or tubes, and without gaining quite as much extra length and forward balance. The trade-off is working distance.

I prefer multi-element CU lenses to single element ones. They're relatively expensive and not made in all filter thread diameters. (Eg the Canon 500D and 250D's are not available in 67mm.) So, I thought I'd see whether I could use my existing CU lenses on step-down rings without them vignetting. The answer is : the 70-300 will work perfectly well at all FLs, all apertures and all relevant focusing distances when fitted with 62, 58, and 52mm close up lenses. That's tested with CU lenses with values ranging from +1.5 to +4. All were two element lenses, so quite thick. I didn't try 49mm and smaller. So, no need to buy another CU lens in 67mm if you already have any of these,

This came as a bit of a surprise. I'm quite used to Fuji lenses working well with a filter one size smaller than the lens' own thread. I think that's because most Fuji lenses have broad nomenclature rings, so there's plenty of capacity to take a smaller filter. It was a bit of a surprise that the 70-300 would work with a 52mm CU lens without vignetting.

Cheers, Rod

It actually makes for a credible macro lens. 👍

I have an old Canon 250D close-up lens that I have always used with my telezooms. Including the Fuji 70-300. The quality is very high. I normally use it around 100mm, and rather than using AF, I slowly lean forward/back until the image is focused. Works really well.

Many manufacturers keep their filter sizes to a restricted range, and so will install a thread larger than the minimum required on specific lenses.
One of my MFT primes has a 37mm thread but works perfectly well with 25mm filters fitted (quite a significant step down).
Clearly it's worth giving a step down a try if you want to use a filter/lens that's smaller than the lens takes by default (at least within reason).
Perhaps I'll experiment with my more commonly used lens & note the smallest filter size before vignetting - potentially a useful extra column to by spreadsheet :)

As to multi element CU lenses (well worth using) the Raynox options (DCR250 & DCR150 are both 3 element) are surprisingly cheap.
Working distance shooting lifesize with the DCR150 on a 300mm lens, is considerably more than the same magnification using a 50mm on tubes - one of the reasons I prefer the DCR150 to the more common & more powerful DCR250. Max working distance with the DCR150 is 208mm.

Reversing an old prime lens as a CU lens can also be very effective, but working distances are nearer 50mm.

Hi,

I've never been able to spot a consistent pattern of filter sizing that might give a hint to manufacturer thinking with Fuji lenses. Clearly there is no consistent sizing standard - like Pentax's old 49mm standard or Nikon's 52mm standard. They're all over the place. Even just the small lenses use 39, 43, 46, 49 & 52mm threads. Some appear to have been made as small as possible to avoid blocking the OVF window on the X-Pro Series. Some have significant redundancy and at least one that I have used (the 16/1.4) has none.

I couldn't include the Raynox products in my little sample. Unfortunately Raynox aren't marketed in Australia. It would be good to add them to the info mill. The rear thread on the Raynox DCR150 (inside their adapter) is spec'd at 43mm - even smaller than 52mm. Have you actually tried the Raynox 150 and 250 on the XF70-300? Any issues with vignetting?

Cheers, Rod

Add me to the list of photographers curious about this. I’ve considered a Raynox for my X-100V. Its working on the 70-300 would go a long way towards sealing the deal.

I've not tried either raynox on the XF70-300 (I don't have one) but I have tried both on a wide range of cameras/lenses, including a 55-300 on APSC, a 70-200 on FF & 45-200 on MFT... Not seen issues on any of these at least at the long end.

I don't see any vinegtting (see first photo with white background). All photos taken at f8, resized to 50%, saved at 100%. Distance from sea urchin shell to front element is the same (about 12cm) when fully extended and retracted. It's very hard to acquire super sharp focus at 300mm as you need to find a precise distance from the object and keep dead still, even when using a tripod.

Without Raynox 250

Love my Raynox 250. Have had it since my first Fuji digital camera back in 2003!

I have the 70-300, and my Raynox DCR-150 is tucked away in my hardly-ever-used-gear bin. I may be able to try some test shots today or tomorrow; what kind of information does anyone interested want to know?

I have a two-element Marumi DHG Achromat +4. It works well, and has the same 67mm filter thread as the 70-300. The Raynox is not available in my home country of Germany, either.