Note: I used f16 and natural light with the 100mm lens. I used f32 and flash on the 100mm + Raynox photo to maximize DOF, but as you can see it's still very thin at this high magnification. The keeper rate with the 100mm macro alone is much higher, it's far less finicky to use.
Last edited by audiobomber; 10-07-2009 at 06:33 AM.
I was looking into nabbing a macro in the 100mm range if one came along for the right price, after seeing this, I guess I should open up my options.
A Raynox has its advantages, i.e. low cost, small size, versatility (no lens change required, use it with several lenses). IME a Raynox gives you IQ that is hard to distinguish from the lens on its own. The 250 works best with standard or mild telephoto lensess. The Raynox 150 goes well with longer lenses, say above 135mm and gives you a longer working distance than a 100mm macro on its own.
Still, I find the 100mm macro easier to use. When I use a Raynox for insects I use a minimum of f/14. A 100mm macro lens provides useable DOF at less extreme apertures and is often acceptable as low as f/8. I have and use both Raynoxes and the 100mm macro, but if I'm specifically out for shooting macros, there's no question I want the dedicated lens on the camera.
Last edited by audiobomber; 09-25-2009 at 05:39 AM.
I was just about to ask if it would make sense to put Raynox on a dedicated Macro lens I recently bought a Pentax 4/100 Macro (1:2 magnification) and I wonder if using Raynox 150 or 250 with it would make sense or not.
I wonder if using Raynox 150 or 250 with it would make sense or not.
It definitely makes sense, but you'll be better served by the Raynox 250's greater magnification. On a 100mm lens, I don't think a DCR-150 will give you enough of a boost to make it worthwhile.