Close up macro filters- how to use?

Hi,
I bought some cheap close up macro filters to get an intro to macro phtoography. If I find it's more than a novelty I'll aim to get a dedicated macro lens next year.

I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens
+1, +2 and +4 filters.
I haven't had a chance to use them yet but I know I have to be close to the object I'm photogrpahing (about 10 inches approx.)
besides that anything to note?
Can I shoot in shutter priority or should I use manual?
what's best aperture to use?
ISO- lowest?
etc.
thanks in advance,
pa.

You can shoot in any exposure mode you wish. I prefer aperture priority because . . .

the best aperture to use will depend on your subject and how you want it to look. The aperture controls depth of field and creative photographers will use their aperture selection to best show off their subject.

ISO? Whatever you can get away with, as low as possible for the prevailing lighting conditions, or . . .

use flash to get as much light as you can onto your subject to make full use of all your aperture options.

Small aperture (large f number) will get more of the subject in focus. A large aperture (small f number) will reduce the depth of field such that only a small part of your subject is in focus. Use the range creatively. Optimum sharpness for most lenses is found between f8 and f16.

Lastly, after you've tried auto-focus and experienced the frustrations it can bring, switch to manual focus, then forget auto focus for macro work.

How to use close-up macro filters?

Remove from lens. Place in bin...

Sorry, I'm being facetious

But I have never had any luck with them. I have always found that they distorted the image, reduced contrast, and increased flare/ghosting. I found better results from cropping.

Having said that, I have heard good things about the Raynox close-up filters.

Alterntive macro methods (that don't involve buying a specific lens) are to use extension tubes or reverse mounting a lens.

I am interested in macro photography too.
Would bellows be another option?

Yes, with the added advantage of having a built-in focussing rail.

That depends on the Bellows. I've got three different sets & I don't think any have a built in focusing rail. (The BPM one might have but that came with a Nikon mount so I've not used it)
I have got focusing rails too, one set of which only cost £20, making the budget £12 bellows highly usable.

Bellows are one of the most flexible macro options, but they're not fast to use/focus so they're not to every-one's taste.

The old Boots close up lens I've had for 20 years is about as much use as a child's magnifying glass. But better quality achromatic ones can be well worth using.

I've had good success with a decent Marumi achromatic filter. Admittedly on a decent lens but the results were not too bad.
it was a fairly rough test and I was going to revisit it but ran out of time. The images were from the jpg in camera and have not been balanced for exposure etc but its indicative.

Sigma 105mm f8 1:1
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/ff7dd095.jpg[/IMG]

Vivitar 55mm f8 1:1
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/26496aee.jpg[/IMG]

Nokton 58mm +5 Achromatic + 32mm tube f8
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/3ef15526.jpg[/IMG]

So that is roughly 1:1 with a few quid of tube and a £20 filter and a decent 50mm lens. Either that or get a Vivitar.

I got the Raynox 250 and finding it pretty good.

Another vote for the Raynox 250 (or the 150 if you don't need that level of magnification) - great value for money. These shots of a tiny (1cm long) caterpillar were taken with the Tamron 90 and the Raynox 250 together but you can of course put the Raynoxs on most lenses to convert them to macro capability.

What sort of working distance do you get with the 250?

Just a few inches.