[Phosphene]

Once again hello all,
Which of these would you recommend in combination with a SMC DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR lens,
Raynox 150 or 250? The purpose would be floral and insect shot with greater magnification than
native 1:1. I also have two 2x TCs, which are stripped of glass which I could/would use in conjunction with Raynox.
Please bear in mind, that I am new to all this macro photography thing so very shallow DOF & working distance frightens
me off, but I just cannot resist of trying. Your super-macro shots of enlarged bodies of those little critters are simply gorgeous so I envy you & want to try also.

If you have seen my shots, I was using the 250 with that DFA 100mm WR. You really can't go wrong with either the 150 or the 250 on it though. I probably will be picking up the 150 for solo use on the 100WR when the 250 ends up being too much magnification and then stack it on the 250 for when the 250 alone is not enough magnification.

Haven't used stripped TCs with that combo yet. What TCs do you have? I should pick some up and try that as well.

I will say that with the 250 and the 100mm WR, your DOF is very narrow. I often snap at F13-F22 with an ISO of 80-250 on my K-5 and K-5IIs. I also use an external flash with cheap softbox attachment or the Pentax ring flash. Oh speaking of which, here are my first shots taken with that combo using the K-5IIs. Snapped those yesterday.

Glad to meet ya potsmoker. I'd like to say that your name could be substituted for my own since some of my best photos are taken after partaking.

Attached Images

     

[Fresdorf]

Very nice shots. Too bad my 150 should meet me just about two months from now. But i'll be admiring all of your photos until then

[Phosphene]

Very nice shots. Too bad my 150 should meet me just about two months from now. But i'll be admiring all of your photos until then

I look forward to seeing them Fresdorf and thanks.

[Culture]

I have been having difficulty choosing the right aperture with my macro shots. I have been trying to stay between 16-22

Then I saw this video below from learnmyshot on youtube

You Tube

You Tube

At the end of the video his settings were f29 and later f32. Now from what I have read apertures that small cause diffractions.

So why would an apparent professional photography choose f value that high.

[audiobomber]

So why would an apparent professional photography choose f value that high.

Because sometimes DOF is more important than ultimate resolution.

[karinatwork]

After having read this whole entire thread, I still wasn't able to find my answer. So please allow me to introduce myself, and ask my question. Maybe someone here can help...

I'm Karin, and I don't own a Pentax. I have a Fuji X-E1 instead. Mirrorless, but with a APS-C sensor. I got a 60 mm f2.4 macro lens with a 1:2 magnification. I would like to add a Raynox add-on lens to achieve 1:1 magnification. The closest focus distance is 0.88 feet (0.267 meters).

I have to say that I already owned a Raynox 250, and while I liked it a lot, I had to get really close to the subject to achieve focus. However, I misplaced/lost it. So before re-purchasing the same 250, I was wondering if the 150 wouldn't be a better fit. HOWEVER, after reading this thread, I am thinking that I won't get much out of the 150, and my 1:2 may only turn into a 1:1.5

Thank you so much for helping me figure this out!

Cheers!

[audiobomber]

I got a 60 mm f2.4 macro lens with a 1:2 magnification. I would like to add a Raynox add-on lens to achieve 1:1 magnification. The closest focus distance is 0.88 feet (0.267 meters).

I have to say that I already owned a Raynox 250, and while I liked it a lot, I had to get really close to the subject to achieve focus. However, I misplaced/lost it. So before re-purchasing the same 250, I was wondering if the 150 wouldn't be a better fit. HOWEVER, after reading this thread, I am thinking that I won't get much out of the 150, and my 1:2 may only turn into a 1:1.5

There's a calculator here for lens + closeup filter: Macro Extension Tubes & Close-up Lenses

The Raynox 150 on your 60mm lens will give you 1:1 macro at minimum focus distance, with a longer working distance than the 250.

[karinatwork]

Cool, thank you. I suppose 0.93 is almost as good as 1.0 - but definitively better than 0.5
I'll give the 150 a try... and if I find my 250 again, I'm all golden.

[audiobomber]

Cool, thank you. I suppose 0.93 is almost as good as 1.0

You will not notice the difference.

[Culture]

Because sometimes DOF is more important than ultimate resolution.

Audiobomber, can you elaborate? I am sorry the explanation is lost on me.

[audiobomber]

Audiobomber, can you elaborate? I am sorry the explanation is lost on me.

Maybe you're reading too much into it? I'm not saying anything profound. Macro shooting, possibly more than any other type of photography, requires that you compromise on ISO, shutter speed and/or aperture for a satisfactory result. Aperture controls DOF and sharpness. If you go to the minimum or near minimum aperture value that the lens will allow, the overall result will be softer, but it may be a worthwhile compromise to have the entire subject in focus.

[Tamia]

I've not used my Raynox 150 since last fall, but last week went for an early hike on a rare sunny morning and found frost melting on moss and lichen. This is one hand-held picture. I used a Pentax 55-300mm telephoto for this:



Not the greatest picture, but shooting with the Raynox encourages me to go out specifically to use it. Sunrise and early morning is a great time when the frost sparkles in low sun.

[Culture]

I took this over the weekend when some friends brought over some flowers.

It doesnt show in the EXIF but I used a strobe for light.

I have to admit that I took several shots and all of them came out fine.

But I could hardly see the subject in focus. I only shot based on focus confirmation beep. I am wondering what could be the problem.

Anyway it turned good in my opinion.

[potsmoker]

If you have seen my shots, I was using the 250 with that DFA 100mm WR. You really can't go wrong with either the 150 or the 250 on it though. I probably will be picking up the 150 for solo use on the 100WR when the 250 ends up being too much magnification and then stack it on the 250 for when the 250 alone is not enough magnification.

Haven't used stripped TCs with that combo yet. What TCs do you have? I should pick some up and try that as well.

I will say that with the 250 and the 100mm WR, your DOF is very narrow. I often snap at F13-F22 with an ISO of 80-250 on my K-5 and K-5IIs. I also use an external flash with cheap softbox attachment or the Pentax ring flash. Oh speaking of which, here are my first shots taken with that combo using the K-5IIs. Snapped those yesterday.

Glad to meet ya potsmoker. I'd like to say that your name could be substituted for my own since some of my best photos are taken after partaking.

Yes, I have and I must admit that your shots are gorgeous. Assume you are using focus stacking technique with Raynox 250? Maybe some special equipment for that purpose?

My TCs are with electric contacts so I could control the aperture. Without optics they act just like ~25-26 mm macro rings (extension tubes). Mine are Takumar and Vivitar 2x. There are plenty of these and similar on Ebay for a reasonable price what I can't say about genuine macro rings with electric contacts which are practically impossible to find.

The pleasure is all mine, Phosphene. I am happy to know that I am welcomed in this friendly community and it's nice to know that there are other "partakers".

[Phosphene]

I haven't had to compromise much on ISO. I usually run an ISO range between 80-200. My aperture normally runs now from F22-F25 while compensating for brightness with the EV settings on the camera and on the flash. Here are some more shots I just snapped the other day.

The head shot of the banded ash borer is the only stack in this one. Was nine shots performed hand-held.

Raynox 250 with DFA 100mm WR macro
K-5IIs body. Just got it not too long ago and I think I am seeing a difference in the original RAWs on clarity and sharpness. Almost biting sharp before editing. But I maybe just seeing things.

Some other things to consider is not always trying to get the absolute minimal focal distance on every shot. Sometimes it pays to back off just a little to allow a little more light into the shot. It also helps, on occasion, to not blast the target head on with the flash. I will have a portion of the dispersed flash illuminating the front of the subject while allowing a distribution of light to bathe over the subject to allow for some background illumination. I tend to enjoy the shots more if my subjects do not always look like they were staged on a black background. But that is just me.

Another thing to consider, if you are like me and you want to get as much of the subject in focus in one shot is to use the curvature of the raynox lens to your advantage. Put the center of the lens on a slight indentation of the subject and allow the backward curvature of the lens to capture protrusions from your subject within the focal plane. I have only been shooting with it for a year but I tend to learn more and more with every shot. As you all know, lighting in each scene is different. Also backing off of the subject a slight bit at times allows more of your subject to fall within that narrow focal plane. I hope this helps.