Raynox lens for macro shooting

Gary G · 11-18-2010, 09:35 AM

As a compromise between shelling out big bucks for a dedicated macro lens or fiddling with extension tubes (which my lens does not truly accommodate anyway), I am considering using a Raynox DCR150 conversion lens. I've checked out various macro photos that users have taken using this lens (and the stronger DCR250) and the shots look pretty incredible.

I plan on using this on my Tamrom 70-300 mm telephoto, which I use on my Pentax K-x. For best results I understand that the conversion lens should be used at the len's maximum focal length (in my case 300 mm).

Does anyone have first hand experience, either positive or negative, using the Raynox DCR150 or 250 lenses? My thinking is that the Raynox will provide a reliable and inexpensive way to dabble in macro photography, with the emphasis on inexpensive.

VaughnA · 11-18-2010, 09:44 AM

Check out the Raynox Club Thread...

Or.. Does this answer your question? It's my only macro and I pretty happy with the results that I've gotten. It's really a steal for the money and performs better than many of the 'Close Focusing' pseudo macros IMHO..

lowspark86 · 11-18-2010, 12:14 PM

Go ahead and get a DCR150 to find out if you like doing macro. It is inexpensive (compared to a lens) and convenient (compared to tubes and reversing). If you want to try something else you can probably sell it and lose 10 dollars.

It is easy to carry around and snap on a lens so I find it handy. You can use is on almost any lens and it will allow closer focus which can be neat.

Don't be afraid to use less than 300mm on the zoom, you might get results that are better.

Gary G · 11-18-2010, 12:37 PM

Excellent images, and the type of macro results I am looking for. Wondering if there is any noticeable difference between the DCR150 and DCR250. I think the 250 may reduce the DOF even more and is harder to focus, but that's just from what I've read. With a price difference of just a few bucks I am wondering which would be the better investment and easier to use, at least for an amateur shooter such as myself.

I guess I'll have to check out the Raynox thread. Just curious, were the bee images shot with the 150 or 250 lens?

VaughnA · 11-18-2010, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Gary G

I guess I'll have to check out the Raynox thread. Just curious, were the bee images shot with the 150 or 250 lens?

150 on the 55-300. I think a lot of folks find this the best of the cheap combinations.

Gary G · 11-18-2010, 03:55 PM

Thanks for the feedback. Adorama has the DCR150 on sale so I went ahead and just ordered it. Looking forward to some macro experimentation. Should be fun.

newarts · 11-18-2010, 04:27 PM

Gary, I hope you are pleased with the Raynox 150.

It should work well at all your zoom's focal lengths.

I was surprised to find that my K-x on-camera flash works well with the Clip-on Raynox DCR 150 when using the DA 55-300mm zoom to almost the maximum magnification. (it is a very good thing to have auto-flash for macro work!)

Dave

Last edited by newarts; 11-18-2010 at 04:47 PM.

newarts · 11-18-2010, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Gary G

Excellent images, and the type of macro results I am looking for. Wondering if there is any noticeable difference between the DCR150 and DCR250. I think the 250 may reduce the DOF even more and is harder to focus, but that's just from what I've read. With a price difference of just a few bucks I am wondering which would be the better investment and easier to use, at least for an amateur shooter such as myself.

I guess I'll have to check out the Raynox thread. Just curious, were the bee images shot with the 150 or 250 lens?

Gary,

The DCR 250 close-up lens is almost twice as strong (125mm) as the DCR 150 (208mm). As a result, it is suited for shorter main lenses (magnifications above 1X are hard to handle). It has a shorter working distance because of its higher strength. (I've not heard of any difference in their optical quality.)

Also since the 150 is on a longer lens than the 250 would be, it is further from the flash, so the flash will be aimed better.

The above implies the Raynox DCR 150 is easier to use.

Dave

PS The optic relationships:
Magnification ~ Primary_Focal_length/Close-up_focal_length
Working distance ~ close-up lens focal length.

les3547 · 11-19-2010, 08:43 AM

A question I have wondered about (if the OP doesn't mind) is whether attaching my Raynox to a superior lens, say the 77mm Limited, degrades the IQ the primary lens can deliver? Will the Raynox become the "weakest link" on a lens like that, or will it have little effect on optical quality?

To the OP, I use a step down ring with my Raynox, it seems to work better than their adapter. So for the 55-300 zoom, for example, you'd need a 58-43 adapter, like the one found here (scroll down three items): Accessories

11-18-2010, 09:35 AM	#1
Gary G New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 21	Raynox lens for macro shooting As a compromise between shelling out big bucks for a dedicated macro lens or fiddling with extension tubes (which my lens does not truly accommodate anyway), I am considering using a Raynox DCR150 conversion lens. I've checked out various macro photos that users have taken using this lens (and the stronger DCR250) and the shots look pretty incredible. I plan on using this on my Tamrom 70-300 mm telephoto, which I use on my Pentax K-x. For best results I understand that the conversion lens should be used at the len's maximum focal length (in my case 300 mm). Does anyone have first hand experience, either positive or negative, using the Raynox DCR150 or 250 lenses? My thinking is that the Raynox will provide a reliable and inexpensive way to dabble in macro photography, with the emphasis on inexpensive.

11-18-2010, 04:41 PM	#8
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by Gary G Excellent images, and the type of macro results I am looking for. Wondering if there is any noticeable difference between the DCR150 and DCR250. I think the 250 may reduce the DOF even more and is harder to focus, but that's just from what I've read. With a price difference of just a few bucks I am wondering which would be the better investment and easier to use, at least for an amateur shooter such as myself. I guess I'll have to check out the Raynox thread. Just curious, were the bee images shot with the 150 or 250 lens? Gary, The DCR 250 close-up lens is almost twice as strong (125mm) as the DCR 150 (208mm). As a result, it is suited for shorter main lenses (magnifications above 1X are hard to handle). It has a shorter working distance because of its higher strength. (I've not heard of any difference in their optical quality.) Also since the 150 is on a longer lens than the 250 would be, it is further from the flash, so the flash will be aimed better. The above implies the Raynox DCR 150 is easier to use. Dave PS The optic relationships: Magnification ~ Primary_Focal_length/Close-up_focal_length Working distance ~ close-up lens focal length. Last edited by newarts; 11-18-2010 at 04:48 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Raynox Macro club	audiobomber	Lens Clubs	947	10-08-2022 03:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Lens (Worldwide)	ChipB	Sold Items	2	10-26-2010 12:21 PM
Macro shooting/lens on a BUDGET	KxBlaze	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-09-2010 06:17 PM
New to Macro - Want to try a Raynox but which one?	JRock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	08-17-2008 12:49 AM

11-18-2010, 09:44 AM	#2
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	Check out the Raynox Club Thread... Or.. Does this answer your question? It's my only macro and I pretty happy with the results that I've gotten. It's really a steal for the money and performs better than many of the 'Close Focusing' pseudo macros IMHO..

11-18-2010, 12:14 PM	#3
lowspark86 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Southwest Photos: Albums Posts: 157	Go ahead and get a DCR150 to find out if you like doing macro. It is inexpensive (compared to a lens) and convenient (compared to tubes and reversing). If you want to try something else you can probably sell it and lose 10 dollars. It is easy to carry around and snap on a lens so I find it handy. You can use is on almost any lens and it will allow closer focus which can be neat. Don't be afraid to use less than 300mm on the zoom, you might get results that are better.

11-18-2010, 12:37 PM	#4
Gary G New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 21 Original Poster	Excellent images, and the type of macro results I am looking for. Wondering if there is any noticeable difference between the DCR150 and DCR250. I think the 250 may reduce the DOF even more and is harder to focus, but that's just from what I've read. With a price difference of just a few bucks I am wondering which would be the better investment and easier to use, at least for an amateur shooter such as myself. I guess I'll have to check out the Raynox thread. Just curious, were the bee images shot with the 150 or 250 lens?

11-18-2010, 12:56 PM	#5
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	Originally posted by Gary G I guess I'll have to check out the Raynox thread. Just curious, were the bee images shot with the 150 or 250 lens? 150 on the 55-300. I think a lot of folks find this the best of the cheap combinations.

11-18-2010, 03:55 PM	#6
Gary G New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 21 Original Poster	Thanks for the feedback. Adorama has the DCR150 on sale so I went ahead and just ordered it. Looking forward to some macro experimentation. Should be fun.

11-18-2010, 04:27 PM	#7
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Gary, I hope you are pleased with the Raynox 150. It should work well at all your zoom's focal lengths. I was surprised to find that my K-x on-camera flash works well with the Clip-on Raynox DCR 150 when using the DA 55-300mm zoom to almost the maximum magnification. (it is a very good thing to have auto-flash for macro work!) Dave Last edited by newarts; 11-18-2010 at 04:47 PM.

11-19-2010, 08:43 AM	#9
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	A question I have wondered about (if the OP doesn't mind) is whether attaching my Raynox to a superior lens, say the 77mm Limited, degrades the IQ the primary lens can deliver? Will the Raynox become the "weakest link" on a lens like that, or will it have little effect on optical quality? To the OP, I use a step down ring with my Raynox, it seems to work better than their adapter. So for the 55-300 zoom, for example, you'd need a 58-43 adapter, like the one found here (scroll down three items): Accessories