Talk:Close-up lens

Why filter?
It seems that this page used to be called "Close-up lens", which in my experience is the normal and correct term. Close-up lenses don't fit the definition of Filter, and the text of the article doesn't refer to filters either. On the other hand, there's no denying that the objects are lenses. It seems that the justification was "moved Close-up lens to Close-up filter: I have never heard anyone call it a close up lens". But that's hardly adequate. I propose to rename the article to Close-up lens. Groogle (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, they are not filters, however much they may superficially resemble filters in general appearance, and the article name should be reverted to "Close-up lens". One WP editor's personal experience (commonly known hereabouts as Original Research) should not be allowed to topple standard terminology which can be found in countless textbooks and instruction manuals published during the past hundred years. AVarchaeologist (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Triply agree. I can fix this and will barring somebody quickly objects with a strong rationale. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * you moved "close-up lens" to "close-up filter" in 2009 with the comment "I have never heard anyone call it a close up lens". This I believe was a mistake. People certainly do use "lens". It's what Canon calls them. Nikon seems to call them "Macro lenses". After watching a spattering of youtube videos to get a sense of the terminology in use and it seems like most the introductory videos on close-up lens/filters start by explaining how "filter" is a misnomer and that it's not a filter but a lens and that "close-up lens" is more correct. So it seems your anecdotal justification just doesn't hold up. Given that the big manufacturers are calling them lenses and that they are lenses, the current state of the article title is doing more harm than good. It should be changed. Reading the article itself and the talk page and the edit summaries in their histories suggests that editor sentiment strongly prefers "lens" for the title than "filter". Unless you can expand your argument for the move, I intend to move it back. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was going to wait a few days to make the change but I got some caffeine in me and was in the mood so I decided not to waste the creative urge. I consulted all photography books in my library. Of the seven I have that discuss them, all use "close-up lens" and none of them use "close-up filter". A Google search yields results in a 3:1 ratio in favor of "lens". All this is consistent with my Youtube viewing the other day which suggests that "filter", while definitely in usage, is less popular and a misnomer. Combined this research makes me confident that the change should be made so I went ahead and did it. I also started improving the article with some references. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth I don't remember moving the page (almost ten years ago) but it definitely seems that you've done your research and I have no counter-argument. Thanks for checking! --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 21:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Broken Link?
The external link to "DIY Close-Up Filter" appears to be broken. I suspect this needs to be deleted but that's a guess and I haven't researched it further. Jvasil (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Marking as moot. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)