[violini]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I found that most of the macros had shortcomings, i.e., shallow DOF. Just look at those photos at the beginning of this thread, flowers & bees, they are very ugly to me just because of half-blurred surrounding. For photographs, for instance, electronic circuit board where no blur is allowed, I end up using small sensor p&s.

[the swede]

Benn looking through this thread today and have some questions i would like to get help with.

I currently have the D-FA 100 macro, wich is a great lens. However, im going for a DA Ltd trio with the DA 70 to be bought soon.

Now... bare with me. The shots Marc has done with the Raynox 150 and DA 70 seems like a very good macro combo.

Would it be a "downstep" in terms of IQ to sell the D-FA 100 macro and use the DA 70 + Raynox combo instead?

[NiftyFifty]

I found that most of the macros had shortcomings, i.e., shallow DOF. Just look at those photos at the beginning of this thread, flowers & bees, they are very ugly to me just because of half-blurred surrounding. For photographs, for instance, electronic circuit board where no blur is allowed, I end up using small sensor p&s.

The "half-blurred surrounding" is properly called bokeh (I had to look it up when I got my DSLR, LOL), and it's actually something that's desirable to have for very many photographers. Different lenses produce different types of bokeh - I've seen some bokeh that I couldn't describe any way besides "pretty". You're the first person I've ever encountered who didn't like bokeh, and I admit I never considered that some people might not like it for some reason. Point and shoots don't usually produce bokeh, although my first camera (an advanced P&S or "bridge" camera) did produce it sometimes.

[monkeyfish]

Hello
I have just purchased a Pentax Kr (with DA version kit lenses). Today I bought a Pentax SMC M 50mm F1.7 Lens from ebay. Does anyone know if I can use the raynox 150 or 250 with this lens? Would I get a better macro with DCR-150 on my 55-300mm lens or the DCR-250 on my 50mm lens?

Or do I have to go with extension tubes or bellows?

Sorry for all the questions I am completely new to all of this.

Thanks

[dmfw]

I purchased a Raynox 150. Can I use this on the Pentax 55-300 Lens? I attached the Raynox 150, and the focus point is so shallow, from 55-200mm, that I have to mount the lens on a tripod to keep it in focus.

The Raynox 150 works well with the stick 18-55 lens.

Wondering if this me, the Raynox 150, etc.

Thanks

[paddy567]

Hi monkeyfish and dmfw, if you peruse this very thread, you will discover the answers to both your questions, and much more.

[monkeyfish]

Hi monkeyfish and dmfw, if you peruse this very thread, you will discover the answers to both your questions, and much more.

Hey paddy567
Thanks for that. I have actually read the entire 18 pages twice :-) I still can't decide if I should go for the raynox 150 with my 55-300 kit lens or the 250 with my older M series 50mm prime lens? I really like the idea of close up insect and bee photos. which would give me the best macro shots? Which would be easier for a total beginner? Or is it better to go with a vivitar 2x teleconverter?
Sorry if I'm clueless.
:-)

[mikeSF]

depending on how much DOF and overall control you need, another option is to reverse mount that 50/1.7. That lens works very well in reverse without any Raynox.

here is my 50/1.7 mounted backwards:

[audiobomber]

depending on how much DOF and overall control you need, another option is to reverse mount that 50/1.7. That lens works very well in reverse without any Raynox.

True, but you lose auto aperture, working distance is very tight and the bayonet end of the lens is exposed to a lot of dust that may later end up in your camera.

---------- Post added 2011-03-08 at 07:46 ----------

I purchased a Raynox 150. Can I use this on the Pentax 55-300 Lens? I attached the Raynox 150, and the focus point is so shallow, from 55-200mm, that I have to mount the lens on a tripod to keep it in focus.

The Raynox 150 works well with the stick 18-55 lens.

Wondering if this me, the Raynox 150, etc.

Shooting macros is very tricky. DOF is always shallow, which requires you to use very small apertures, and often you need to add light. Sorry, that's just the way it is. It's noticeably easier with a true macro lens than with a Raynox and telephoto, but shooting macros is difficult to master. Technically it's one of the most difficult styles of photography.

---------- Post added 2011-03-08 at 07:55 ----------

Hey paddy567
Thanks for that. I have actually read the entire 18 pages twice :-) I still can't decide if I should go for the raynox 150 with my 55-300 kit lens or the 250 with my older M series 50mm prime lens? I really like the idea of close up insect and bee photos. which would give me the best macro shots? Which would be easier for a total beginner? Or is it better to go with a vivitar 2x teleconverter?

For insects, working distance is key. The Raynox 150 gives you about double the working distance compared to a 250. Mounting a Raynox on a 55-300 gives you decent quality and potentially much higher magnification than a 250 on a 50mm lens. You lose a little quality compared to the 250 on a prime. IMO, the Raynox 150 on a 55-300 is the better way to go for insect macros.

I haven't used my Kenko 1.4X TC for macros except for a little testing. I love the added working distance but it loses a stop of light and quality suffers compared to a Raynox.

---------- Post added 2011-03-08 at 08:09 ----------

Would it be a "downstep" in terms of IQ to sell the D-FA 100 macro and use the DA 70 + Raynox combo instead?

Yes, it would. The 100mm macro is better in all ways except for cost and convenience. Achievable IQ is a little better with the macro lens, but more importantly working distance and DOF suffer with a 250+prime. As a result, the keeper rate is significantly higher with the 100mm.

[mikeSF]

...
Now... bare with me. The shots Marc has done with the Raynox 150 and DA 70 seems like a very good macro combo.

Would it be a "downstep" in terms of IQ to sell the D-FA 100 macro and use the DA 70 + Raynox combo instead?

not quite what you were asking, but here is a focus stacked composite at f/8 using the DA 70 plus Raynox 150. This was composited using some 30 images, so it has much more detail than a single shot would.



---------- Post added 03-10-11 at 07:28 PM ----------

I've been trying out the CZM program that yeatzee mentioned and getting a little better at using it. I also realized to my surprise that my version of Photoshop(CS4) has a focus stacking routine, so I ran the same set of files through both applications and the PS left several gaps/holes where it misread, while the CZM got it mostly right. Only limitation of CZM is that the errors it makes are tougher to correct since PS allows you to tweak each mask. most of this is probably user error, however.

[jeffshaddix]

Is the Raynox 250 usable on the FA31 Limited, or does the bult-in hood prevent it? Anyone tried this combo?

[jeffshaddix]

Yikes, I'm starting to get the feeling no one has tried (or had good luck with) a Raynox 250 on a wide-angle prime...

I'm contemplating getting either a dedicated Sigma 24 1.8 Macro, or finding a ~30mm fast prime + Raynox 250 combo... any experience with the latter here? The only post I saw close was the very first post in the thread with a FA35 @ f/11.

Edit: I found 3 samples of the Sigma 30 1.4 + Raynox 250 from a Nikon user here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/derek_fotos/2809593445/

Anyone else take a crack at something like this?

[Chex]

wow talk about shallow DoF

[audiobomber]

Yikes, I'm starting to get the feeling no one has tried (or had good luck with) a Raynox 250 on a wide-angle prime...

The fact that it's a wide-angle prime isn't a problem, but the FA 31 has a buillt-in hood which looks like it would interfere with the Raynox clip. You could use a Raynox 250 with the 31mm if you unscrew the Raynox from its adaptor and mount it in a 58mm (male) to 43mm (female) reducer. At worst you will see some vignetting. The 250 works well on my FA35mm, but it doesn't get anywhere near true macro magnifications.

Or is this for a film camera? The 31mm is not a wide angle lens on a digital Pentax, it's a normal. With a 31mm and Raynox on a film camera, there would likely be heavy vignetting.

I suspect that people who can afford an FA 31mm Ltd don't piss around with Raynox adapters, they buy a real macro lens.

[Chex]

haha I agree, if you can drop $1300 on a 31mm you can surely find funds for a $500-$700 decent macro.