To test the side effects of the glossy insides, I tried to take images before and after sanding down the insides. Here is the ring inside before and after the sanding treatment:
Without treatment | After sanding the inside |
I used the sandpaper from a bicycle tyre puncture repair kit to make the inside more matte. If you do this, please be aware that sanding the inside is going to produce a lot of dust, dust you don't want into the camera sensor. So be sure to wipe it off with a moist cloth, let it dry, and then blow off any residual dust with a rocket blower.
To test the macro ring with and without the treatment, I set up the Panasonic GH3 with the Lumix G 45-200mm lens at 45mm f/10. I used the 16mm extension ring.
To get an even, bright background, I placed the subject inside a transparent bucket, as a simple macro soft box. Outside, I had the Lumix FL360 flash unit in TTL mode, connected with a TTL cable:
Here are the resulting images, before and after sanding down the inside of the macro ring:
Without treatment | After sanding the inside |
If the glossy inside of the macro tubes is in fact a problem, the bright white background of the subject would expose this. This brightness would then spread to the rest of the image, causing a loss of contrast.
What we see, is that the image taken after making the ring more matte, is in fact slightly better: The red colour of the dynamite sticks is more saturated. And we can notice somewhat better contrasts. But the differences are fairly subtle.
My conclusion is: The lack of contrast due to the glossy macro ring insides is not a big issue. And if you are worried about it, it's a simple matter to fix it by sanding the insides a bit. Just make sure you don't get any plastic dust into the sensor.
If you prefer to buy a set of rings which don't have this problem in the first place, then the good news is that Kenko is producing some which have a proper matte, ribbed surface inside the rings. They are a bit more expensive, though.
I don't know, difference seems pretty significant to me. To each his own, I guess.
ReplyDeleteI also think the difference is significant. Very interesting discovery.
ReplyDelete