[audiobomber]

depends on the MFD of the lens. some are even much shorter than that. the shorter the MFD, the closer the focus to the subject. also consider the shallow DOF as well. it gets much thinner and could lose focus on the other parts or areas of the critter.

I've used the Raynox 250 on a D FA 100mm maco, which would have a similar subject distance to the Tamron 90. I agree, DOF is a challenge. You need to use the smallest apertures and add light. It gives about 1.5:1 macro, quite a difference.

[Pentaxor]

I agree, a diopter on a DA 35mm would not work because of its very short subject distance. But I thought we were talking about the Tamron 90mm.

just an additional info, in case someone is interested if it is ok to put a diopter lens on a DA35 macro for added magnification.

[flippedgazelle]

A Raynox will fit a 49mm filter size. All you need to do is unscrew the Raynox element from its adapter and mount it in a 49-43mm adapter.

I don't have one of 'em.

Besides, I love hanging that off of the 55-300.

[audiobomber]

I was close as possible. It was shot at f9.

The posted photos do not look like 1:1 macro. I suggest you set the lens at minimum focus in Manual Focus mode and move the lens toward the subject until you reach focus.

[flippedgazelle]

The posted photos do not look like 1:1 macro. I suggest you set the lens at minimum focus in Manual Focus mode and move the lens toward the subject until you reach focus.

I totally agree.

[yeatzee]

The posted photos do not look like 1:1 macro. I suggest you set the lens at minimum focus in Manual Focus mode and move the lens toward the subject until you reach focus.

Hmmm, must have been a small fly because 1:1 should give you much more magnification than that... and you say those are cropped!

This.
.
.
.
.

[miss_alexx]

I could have been closer to the fly if the lens could have focused closer. So if I understand what I'm reading, a raynox could do the job: it would allow me to get closer of the fly and get more magnification.

[audiobomber]

So if I understand what I'm reading, a raynox could do the job: it would allow me to get closer of the fly and get more magnification.

Yes. I suggest the Raynox 250 for its higher power on a shorter lens like the 90mm. You can also use the Raynox on your 50-200 for even more magnification and better working distance, at slightly reduced quality compared to mounting on the macro lens.

[miss_alexx]

What's the difference between the raynox 150 and the 250. Thanks

[audiobomber]

What's the difference between the raynox 150 and the 250. Thanks

The 150 has a longer working distance therefore less magnification. To put this in perspective, a Raynox 150 mounted on your 50-200 and set for infinity focus will give you just under 1:1 macro at about 8" (~20 cm) from the lens. A 250 would be about 1.8:1 macro at just over 4" (~10 cm).

[miss_alexx]

Maybe a 150 is just what I want. And what about those filter kit (like Hoya) you can have for 45$ on ebay? Is there a problem for using the on my Tamron to get more magnification?

[audiobomber]

Maybe a 150 is just what I want. And what about those filter kit (like Hoya) you can have for 45$ on ebay? Is there a problem for using the on my Tamron to get more magnification?

The problem is, they are simple lenses with poor sharpness and lots of CA. The Raynoxes have achromatic lens elements for improved optics. There's quite a difference in quality. Have you looked at the Raynox club thread? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

[audiobomber]

Maybe a 150 is just what I want.

Note that the subject distances I showed are for infinity focus. To gain any benefit with the Tamron, you will need to focus closer than the Tamron at 1:1. The 150 will provide a working distance somewhere in between the bare Tamron minimum focus distance and the the Tamron + Raynox 250 focal distance (which I estimate to be about 2"). If you aren't satisfied with 1:1 macro, I recommend the 250. The 150 just won't make that much difference on the end of a 1:1 macro lens.

[miss_alexx]

Note that the subject distances I showed are for infinity focus. To gain any benefit with the Tamron, you will need to focus closer than the Tamron at 1:1. The 150 will provide a working distance somewhere in between the bare Tamron minimum focus distance and the the Tamron + Raynox 250 focal distance (which I estimate to be about 2"). If you aren't satisfied with 1:1 macro, I recommend the 250. The 150 just won't make that much difference on the end of a 1:1 macro lens.

Ok I understand now. Thanks for the advice.

[miss_alexx]

The problem is, they are simple lenses with poor sharpness and lots of CA. The Raynoxes have achromatic lens elements for improved optics. There's quite a difference in quality. Have you looked at the Raynox club thread? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

Ok thanks for the information.