[HermanLee]

Hi guys, I have some questions about Raynox conversion lens.

Is 67mm the biggest diameter that Raynox can go?

I'm thinking to put one on my DA*16-50 or FA*80-200.
Both have Ø 77mm filter size.
Can I use Raynox on these 2 lenses? If yes, which one?

I already had a Vivitar 2X MFTC but I'm curious if the magnification can go higher with the Raynox.
Does Raynox give better IQ compared to my Vivitar 2x MTFC?

Thanks,

[Blue]

That pretty much sums it up. The best option for large diameter lenses is the Canon 500d which will cost ~ $150 depending on the source for one for a 77mm filter threads.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A002_77mm_500D_Clo....html#features

2824A002 Canon 77 Close-up Lens 500D (for Lenses 70mm to 300mm) Double Element

[newarts]

I think a stepdown ring would work ok. There'll be maximum speed loss but that shouldn't matter for macros.

I've no idea how the Raynox' image quality will compare to the Vivitar's.

[SOldBear]

Physically, a step down adapter ring (or several of them) will allow the Raynox to be attached to the lens.

But I'm pretty sure vignetting will occur.

I once tried the Raynox 250 with my Tamron 18-250 (62mm filter thread), it vignetted pretty bad.

I've never compared the IQ of the Raynox vs a 2X TC. But I have a feeling the Raynox is better.

Also, the 2X TC cuts the light in half but the Raynox doesn't cut any light at all (when there is no vignetting).

[HermanLee]

Thanks Blue for the Canon 500D close-up lens info.
I've never seen that before but it seems it's the best we can get for Ø77mm lens.
Do you know where to get a used one? I've searched ebay and online and it seems they all sell new.
I don't want to spend that much since it's just for fun and I don't shoot macro all the time.

I'm hoping that there will be a Raynox that could fit a Ø77mm lens.
Step down ring for this size will be too much of vignetting I guess.

[Marc Sabatella]

You could also consider simply buying a cheap lens with a smaller filter size to use with the Raynox. M200, M135, DA50-200, and any of the various 70-300/75-300's are all good choices. Sure, they aren't "*" glass. But while the Raynox IQ is very good, as is the Canon by all accounts, I wouldn't guess it will really let you take advantage of the "*" quality anyhow, so if you hopeing to use it with one of those lenses to have a *-quality macro lens, I wouldn't bet on it.

BTW, vignetting isn't the end of the world, either. Crop it out and you've got more apparent magnification...

[newarts]

...
I'm hoping that there will be a Raynox that could fit a Ø77mm lens.
Step down ring for this size will be too much of vignetting I guess.

There will not be vignetting at the long end of the lens.

I just hand-held a 37mm Raynox 150 to the end of a 200mm f2.8 lens wide open (72mm filter size). There is no darkening in the corners (certainly no worse than the lens itself.) Here's the un-cropped, downsized photo of my laptop's screen. Each pixel is about 1/4mm.



What I meant in my earlier comment about loss at the fast end is that a 200mm lens cannot function at f:2.8 when one sticks a 37mm aperture in front of it.

Of course there may be vignetting at the shorter focal lengths, but even at 55mm f:2.8 (with a 62mm filter size) lens it isn't horrible. But for macros you probably want the long end any how.

---

Last edited by newarts; 10-09-2009 at 05:10 PM.

[heliphoto]

I haven't used them, so I can't comment on their use, but I recently saw that Marumi is making 77mm Achromat Macro Lenses.

[Blue]

Hermann, I have seen the 77mm size used a couple of times on ebay and the always seem to get bidded close to a new price. I have a very nice 180mm f2.8 lens that I have thought about putting one on is why I'm aware of them. The 58mm version is much more affordable but doesn't help me at the 180-200mm range. I find vignetting to be a P.I.T.A., literally, when I'm doing certain kinds of macros which is why I want that focal length in the first place.

[Marc Sabatella]

Wow, I see Marumi also sells a couple of different 52mm achromats, only a little more expensive than the Raynoxes. I could totally see myself getting one of those, although I'd want to figure out how to compare the diopter strengths.

[HermanLee]

You could also consider simply buying a cheap lens with a smaller filter size to use with the Raynox. M200, M135, DA50-200, and any of the various 70-300/75-300's are all good choices. Sure, they aren't "*" glass. But while the Raynox IQ is very good, as is the Canon by all accounts, I wouldn't guess it will really let you take advantage of the "*" quality anyhow, so if you hopeing to use it with one of those lenses to have a *-quality macro lens, I wouldn't bet on it.

BTW, vignetting isn't the end of the world, either. Crop it out and you've got more apparent magnification...

Marc, I don't want to but another cheaper glass since my original purpose is to use those 2 "*" glasses to focus closer when it's needed.
The idea is to carry less weight and less changing lens.
There were times when I need to shoot close but I can't do it with my FA* 80-200.
I had to step back and lost the opportunity for the shot.

DA*16-50 can focus pretty close but less magnification.

[HermanLee]

There will not be vignetting at the long end of the lens.

I just hand-held a 37mm Raynox 150 to the end of a 200mm f2.8 lens wide open (72mm filter size). There is no darkening in the corners (certainly no worse than the lens itself.) Here's the un-cropped, downsized photo of my laptop's screen. Each pixel is about 1/4mm.

Newarts, thanks for trying this out for me.
I appreciate your help.
It sure looks pretty good. There is almost no vignetting at all.

Maybe I should give it a try.
Which is better for FA*80-200, the Raynox 150 or 250?

[HermanLee]

I haven't used them, so I can't comment on their use, but I recently saw that Marumi is making 77mm Achromat Macro Lenses.

I never heard of this brand before.
How good is it compared to Canon 500D?

[HermanLee]

Hermann, I have seen the 77mm size used a couple of times on ebay and the always seem to get bidded close to a new price. I have a very nice 180mm f2.8 lens that I have thought about putting one on is why I'm aware of them. The 58mm version is much more affordable but doesn't help me at the 180-200mm range. I find vignetting to be a P.I.T.A., literally, when I'm doing certain kinds of macros which is why I want that focal length in the first place.

Blue, is there Canon marketplace forum like what we have here in this forum?
Maybe we can try to find it there.
Wait, then you'll have to compete with me then

[newarts]

Newarts, thanks for trying this out for me.
I appreciate your help.
It sure looks pretty good. There is almost no vignetting at all.

Maybe I should give it a try.
Which is better for FA*80-200, the Raynox 150 or 250?

I think the Raynox DCR 150 is the appropriate lens for your 80-200. That'll give a good range of magnifications with the150 (4.8 diopters, about 208mm) the mag will be from 80/208 to more than 200/208 - actually up to about 2.5X in practice.

The Raynox 250 is 8 diopters, 125mm, and too strong for practical use in most situations with a long lens.

I think I mentioned earlier that the edges will be soft but that usually doesn't matter because at these magnifications the subject's edges are out of focus anyhow due to the small depth of field.

If you really need sharp focus all the way to the edges (like macros of postage stamps,) you'll need a genuine macro lens. It hardly matters which one - they are almost all good. I've had a couple Macro-Takumar 50/4 's which have a 1:1 magnification. Nice lenses for around $75USD if you can find one. But, like you, I want a small kit when I'm out so I carry a 50-300mm zoom and a Raynox 150.

Dave