Originally posted by tvfd911 I was looking into nabbing a macro in the 100mm range if one came along for the right price, after seeing this, I guess I should open up my options.
A Raynox has its advantages, i.e. low cost, small size, versatility (no lens change required, use it with several lenses). IME a Raynox gives you IQ that is hard to distinguish from the lens on its own. The 250 works best with standard or mild telephoto lenses. The Raynox 150 goes well with longer lenses, say above 135mm, and gives you a longer working distance than a 100mm macro on its own.
I find the D FA 100mm macro much easier to use than a diopter. When I use a Raynox for insects I use a minimum of f/14. A 100mm macro lens provides useable DOF at less extreme apertures and is often acceptable as low as f/8. I have and use both Raynoxes and the 100mm macro, but if I'm specifically out for shooting macros, there's no question I want the dedicated lens on the camera.