[res3567]

Rob nice capture but I really don't like eight legged creatures...ugh!!

Dan, nice capture on the yellow. I also looked at your album on the DCR-150. I like the bug and the purple flower. Nice crisp and clear on the steman

Thanks and sorry bout that.

I had a feeling some people don't like lil critters; especially the 8 legged variety.

I will find more pleasing subjects to photograph for this thread.

[photolady95]

Originally posted by audiobomber..How are you making out with the Raynox, have you given it another try? I was thinking you might be best to try it on your 135mm, or at something less than full zoom on the 70-300, until you get more used to it.

I haven't been back out since yesterday. It was entirely too hot and I wasn't feeling well today so I just stayed inside.

I'm thinking about trying this on my 50mm first. I think the 135mm Macro would be too much for it.

Originally posted by res3567.....
I had a feeling some people don't like lil critters; especially the 8 legged variety.

I will find more pleasing subjects to photograph for this thread.

I forgive you this time, you didn't know.

I don't mind most critters, even other bugs, but a long time ago a banana spider and I had a tussle whether he should ride on my bare leg or not. I won but have since had a little phobia of these things.
Snakes, now those are cool!!

[res3567]

I forgive you this time, you didn't know.

I don't mind most critters, even other bugs, but a long time ago a banana spider and I had a tussle whether he should ride on my bare leg or not. I won but have since had a little phobia of these things.
Snakes, now those are cool!!

Ok then!

I'm gone go out and try to find me some; the kind that don't bite!

[photolady95]

Well, the photos I took with this DCR-150 just didn't come out. They were blurry so you won't be seeing any of them. Course I only took two photos and was hand holding the camera. I guess I'm going to have to get on my belly to shoot toadstools from now on.

And I'm debating whether I really need this lens adapter. I have the 135mm Macro which does a decent job taking macro shots. And I have a set of closeup lenses too. And then I have this great 70-300mm Macro that does a decent job too.

I don't really know what I was expecting with this lens adapter, but from what I've tried to do with it, isn't working for me.

[newarts]

Well, the photos I took with this DCR-150 just didn't come out. They were blurry so you won't be seeing any of them. Course I only took two photos and was hand holding the camera. I guess I'm going to have to get on my belly to shoot toadstools from now on.

And I'm debating whether I really need this lens adapter. I have the 135mm Macro which does a decent job taking macro shots. And I have a set of closeup lenses too. And then I have this great 70-300mm Macro that does a decent job too.

I don't really know what I was expecting with this lens adapter, but from what I've tried to do with it, isn't working for me.

I suggest trying it on the 135 macro lens.

It is *quite* difficult to hand-hold long lenses for macro work. The 1/f rule for speed still holds (except it is modified to 1/(f(1+m)); plus, in-out motions are very important too. This is not the fault of the Raynox, it is just physics.

Your 135 macro is a 0.2X lens - with the Raynox 150 it should be about .98X which is reasonable.

Dave of Iowa

[photolady95]

I forgot to mention, the two shots were taken with a 50mm. Guess I'll try it tomorrow on the 135mm. I have so far used it on the 50 and the 70-300mm.

Your 135 macro is a 0.2X lens - with the Raynox 150 it should be about .98X which is reasonable.

I have no idea what you mean here.

[Marc Sabatella]

And I'm debating whether I really need this lens adapter. I have the 135mm Macro which does a decent job taking macro shots. And I have a set of closeup lenses too. And then I have this great 70-300mm Macro that does a decent job too.

Well, experimenting on film is a *lot* slower and more expensive than doing so on digital. So it might indeed take quite a bit longer to get the hang of it, and might not be worth it. But:

- If your 135 Macro is 1:1, then I'm not sure what you were ever looking at Raynox for? My guess is that is isn't 1:1, though.

- The 70-300 only does 1:2.

- The closeup lenses can give 1:1 but are junk; no way will they produce results that even come close to the Raynox in quality, nor are they any easier to use if you're trying to get anything approaching 1:1 magnification. They are basically the same as far as how you use them - they are just *much* lower quality.

- The extension tubes would be fine, but give more magnification with shorter lenses. Most likely, something in the 50-100 range would give 1:1 magnification. Depends on how long the tubes are. Problem is that getting 1:1 magnification with a shorter lens means even shorter working distance than with the Raynox, and they aren't particularly easier to use, either.

So I'd say your best options are the 135 Macro if it provides enough magnification, but the Raynox otherwise. The other options either provide less magnification, less quality, or are even harder to use. No one ever said macro photography was easy, though - no matter which option you go, if you want anything approaching 1:1 magnification, you're going to burn through a bunch of film experimenting and practicing.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-19-2009 at 09:56 AM.

[newarts]

"Your 135 macro is a 0.2X lens - with the Raynox 150 it should be about .98X which is reasonable."

I have no idea what you mean here.

I looked up the specifications on your Sears 135mm lens. It has a maximum magnification of 1:5 which means the lens can focus a subject about 5 times wider than the film's frame (this can also be called a magnification of 0.2X ie. 1 divided by 5).

I used some math to calculate the maximum magnification for the Sears lens with the Raynox 150 on it; the result is about 1:1 or a 1 1/2" wide subject will completely fill your 1 1/2" wide film frame.

It is difficult to hand-hold a lens at 1:1 magnification. It is not a defect of the Raynox - it is just hard to do for any lens at this high magnification.

And I'm debating whether I really need this lens adapter. I have the 135mm Macro which does a decent job taking macro shots. And I have a set of closeup lenses too. And then I have this great 70-300mm Macro that does a decent job too.

Your existing lenses, while they say"macro" on them do not actually allow you to get very close to the subject.

I think you are simply not used to the large increase in image size and small working distance needed with the Raynox lens - with it the farthest you can be from the subject is about 8" for any of your lenses.

Dave

[Marc Sabatella]

I looked up the specifications on your Sears 135mm lens. It has a maximum magnification of 1:5 which means the lens can focus a subject about 5 times wider than the film's frame (this can also be called a magnification of 0.2X ie. 1 divided by 5).

Whoa. How on earth do they come off labeling that as a Macro? Unless maybe it originally came with its own Raynox-like adapter?

Anyhow, photoloady - if you're not familiar with the use of ratios to express magnification, I'd suggest some basic reading on the subject of macro photography, because chances are there are other things you should know about the subject (like the importance of solid support, accurate focus, stopping down to get adequate DOF, etc).

But 1:5 magnification is not anywhere near what would normally be considered macro. It's probably worse than your basic run of the mill average 50mm lens, in fact. If you want a bug or small flower to fill the frame or come close to it, you want something closer to 1:1 magnification. And once you get there, you'll need to deal with all those issues of focus, DOF, support, and so forth that are needed to get good pictures at high magnification no matter *what* equipment you use to get there. These pictures don't take themselves!

Practice is the key to macro success, be it with a dedicated macro lens or with a raynox adaptor.

Set up and indoor practice scene in some good window light. A toy, a coin, whatever. If you have a tripod, use it for this first practice. If not, brace the camera/lens against something.
Slowly bring the lens towards the subject till it gets in focus. That is about your focus distance for this combo... It will vary slightly as your focus ring goes from the start to the end, but it will not vary a whole lot, so when you are outside, start close to that distance when you begin to check for focus on your subject.

If you do not have a tripod, just practice holding the camera steady as you take shots of the toy...

And post some shots so we can see how you are doing. But dont give up. The raynox is a great little tool, but macros are tough.

[audiobomber]

Practice is the key to macro success, be it with a dedicated macro lens or with a raynox adaptor.

Set up and indoor practice scene in some good window light. A toy, a coin, whatever. If you have a tripod, use it for this first practice. If not, brace the camera/lens against something.
Slowly bring the lens towards the subject till it gets in focus. That is about your focus distance for this combo... It will vary slightly as your focus ring goes from the start to the end, but it will not vary a whole lot, so when you are outside, start close to that distance when you begin to check for focus on your subject.

If you do not have a tripod, just practice holding the camera steady as you take shots of the toy...

And post some shots so we can see how you are doing. But dont give up. The raynox is a great little tool, but macros are tough.

I would jjust add that you will need extreme f-stops (f/16 to f/32) and a LOT of light.

[photolady95]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions and advice.

I went out this afternoon and tried again. I think I've got it now. I took some shots of a small rose, and was able to see it was in focus. We'll see once the film is developed.

Btw, I knew before how to do macros, I just forgot you need to get close to the subject. I was doing Macro shots when I lived in MN in 1999, but hadn't done any in the last 6 years.

Gus i do have a tripod. It's an old Bogen and I probably need to invest in a newer one.

I bought it here used. I has one turn screw that refuses to tighten all the way so every now and then the leg on that side slides up on its own.
I tried lowering it by extending the legs outwards to get close to the small rose, and had to hold the tripod with one hand because the legs kept sliding out further, going lower and lower.

Marc, film might be slower and more expensive, but I don't have the funds to buy a digital SLR. And I always learn when shooting with film, so I don't really consider it that expensive.

It was a 100+ degrees here, but since you were shooting with a 135mm, decided to stick my raynox 250 on my Vivitar 135 2.8 and try and get a couple examples. The focus distance is closer (about 4-5inches) and Dof is much smaller than with the 150. It was too hot to lay on the ground and get focus on the flies so I did miss the eyes on him.
But the little berry stayed perfectly still and I like how that one came out. It looks much better in this pic than they do on my car after the birds eat them












We have got to get you shooting macro on a digital body... the instant feedback really speeds up the learning process...

[photolady95]

Great shots, Gus. As for the 135mm I have, it has three settings around the barrel I can change to emulate macro....first setting is 1:5, next 1:6 and 1:7. However, I tried this lens today with the raynox but couldn't get a focus with it. So, I went back to using the 70-300mm at 300mm focus was minimum.

And yes, I would love to have a DSLR, but that's not possible right now. Unless I could find a place like a "rent to own" but most of those places carry cameras I would not own. Point and hopes, and digicams.

[audiobomber]

I tried this lens today with the raynox but couldn't get a focus with it. So, I went back to using the 70-300mm at 300mm focus was minimum.

I don't understand why a lens would not be able to focus with a diopter mounted. Are you setting the focus at infinity? That would give you 1:1.5, a lot more magnification than the lens can manage on its own.

At 300mm you will definitely want to set focus at infinity, otherwise it's very hard to handle. I suggest you try infinity focus and about 200mm. That will give you 1:1 macro, which is enough for most any purpose.