[pentagor]

Yes, you used 1/15 of shutter speed. That is pretty slow even for normal (non close up) shots.

[eurostar]

I always used a 100 macro, but after reading "Close up on nature" by John Shaw, I buought a Nikon 3T diopter to use with Pentax-F 70-210, and found that combo much more practical to use for wildflower and big insects like dragonflies than the fixed focal lenght macro. The optical quality was nearly same, but both of them, the F lens and the Nikon close up are high quality items.

For true macros of little insects, a 100 or 200 macro is better, though...

[Lowell Goudge]

in looking at the cost, e119, to me it costs more than extension tubes, which will give better results assuming you have a relitively good prime, or the cost of a SMC-M 100mm F4 macro used.

I would put the money in a used macro over this solution

[Peter Zack]

Just buy extension tubes with electronic connections...

I've been looking, haven't found any the past year. do you have a source or brand to suggest?

[jslifoaw]

The kit lens natively goes to about 1:3 which I found was often sufficient in most cases. I have tried all of the below solutions:

Macro lens (FA 50mm) - by far the most convenient and high quality
Extension tubes - not very practical, but works well for mid length lenses
2x Teleconverter - only useful for native macro lenses (or else quality isn't great)
Reversing ring - high quality, but manual and close working distance

As an economical solution, I recommend a reversing ring with a 28, 35, or 50mm lens. I wasn't impressed with tubes on anything except my FA135, and the teleconverter only worked well on macro lenses.

[jmbower]

js: I've always had the teleconverter option (usually the vivitar 2X macro-focusing TC) recommended highly to me for use with a fast prime (50mm 1.4 or so)....What is it about the TC that makes it less quality for you?

[jslifoaw]

js: I've always had the teleconverter option (usually the vivitar 2X macro-focusing TC) recommended highly to me for use with a fast prime (50mm 1.4 or so)....What is it about the TC that makes it less quality for you?

Hi there,
I was actually talking about a conventional 2x teleconverter (in my case the Pentax T6-2x which is supposed to be half-decent). The macro-focusing ones may be pretty good and I can't say I've used one before.

My general impression is that macros with a conventional lens in the normal orientation (i.e. with tubes, or a rear/front converter) is typically not as good as the same lenses reversed or true macro lenses. Since macro lenses are often not particularly cheap, I would elect to go for a reversing ring unless I needed the working distance of adding tubes or a TC to a longer lens (135mm+)

For short lenses, the working distance is always so small that I'd favour the solution with the highest quality (i.e. macro lens or reversing ring).

[blinxdk]

So.. just to better evaluate the Raynox lens, I tried taking a photo of a few coins.

It's taken with a K10D, Tamron 28-70 1:2.8 and the Raynox DCR-250. With this lens there is some vignetting at 70. Anyways - I think it's pretty sharp for a $50 attachment to your lens.

Jpeg straigt from camera is here: http://cze.dk/moenter.jpg

[maxwell1295]

I remember seeing some pics taken with those same macro lenses recently. I thought these came out pretty good considering the cost of that setup.

Link: Butterfly Macros (DA50-200 Super!)