[audiobomber]

As someone said earlier in the thread, if you want extreme close ups of insects etc. the 250 is the way to go. If you want moderate macro of flowers or not-so-microscopic macro of insects the 150 would be a good choice.

I have not used the 150 myself, but I guess it would be a bit easier to use than the 250 because of less magnification (more DOF). Hopefully someone with both can confirm this.

You won't get extreme close-ups of insects with either Raynox on a 40-55mm lens. The 150 is easier to use because of increased dof and longer subject distances. The 250 is trickier to handle but more powerful.

The 18-55 does pretty fair flower macros without a diopter (1:3). I recommend the Raynox 250 for lenses below 100mm, otherwise you may as well use the 18-55 and crop your photo.

[Naturenut]

You won't get extreme close-ups of insects with either Raynox on a 40-55mm lens. The 150 is easier to use because of increased dof and longer subject distances. The 250 is trickier to handle but more powerful.

The 18-55 does pretty fair flower macros without a diopter (1:3). I recommend the Raynox 250 for lenses below 100mm, otherwise you may as well use the 18-55 and crop your photo.

I have the 250 and use it on my 70-300 and 18-55. Here's an example:

[wowtip]

You won't get extreme close-ups of insects with either Raynox on a 40-55mm lens. The 150 is easier to use because of increased dof and longer subject distances. The 250 is trickier to handle but more powerful.

The 18-55 does pretty fair flower macros without a diopter (1:3). I recommend the Raynox 250 for lenses below 100mm, otherwise you may as well use the 18-55 and crop your photo.

Dan, with extreme I meant in the area of what a 50-100 mm dedicated macro at 1:1 mag would give, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully.

This is with FA50 + DCR-250, maybe not extreme, but a good combo for small critters in my opinion:

[audiobomber]

Dan, with extreme I meant in the area of what a 50-100 mm dedicated macro at 1:1 mag would give, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully.

1:1 macro is the same magnification, no matter what the focal length. "Extreme macro" is a term normally used for macros greater than 1:1. A Raynox 250 on a 40mm, 50mm or 18-55 lens will not reach 1:1. Your photo is very good, but nowhere near 1:1 macro, more like 1:2.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 08-07-2010 at 06:58 AM.

[wowtip]

1:1 macro is the same magnification, no matter what the focal length. "Extreme macro" is a term normally used for macros greater than 1:1. A Raynox 250 on a 40mm, 50mm or 18-55 lens will not reach 1:1. Your photo is very good, but nowhere near 1:1 macro, more like 1:2.

Thanks for clearing that up, do you know the FL required for 1:1 with the 250?

This one with SMC 135mm, comparing that with my 105mm dedicated macro, it seems like almost the same magnification.


This one with Vivitar 200mm, would seem like a bit more than 1:1 to me.




Got to find some info on how to calculate actual magnification...

[audiobomber]

Thanks for clearing that up, do you know the FL required for 1:1 with the 250?

Got to find some info on how to calculate actual magnification...

The Raynox 250 delivers 1:1 macro mounted on a 125 mm lens when it's set for infinity focus. Your 135mm will be a little above 1:1, your 200mm a little below 2:1 at infinity focus. Depending on the lens, you can then focus closer and get somewhat better magnification.

There are calculations available, but it's easier to photgraph a ruler at minimum focus. A 1:1 macro lens will capture about an inch (23.6mm). A 1:2 macro about 2 inches, 2:1 macro about 1/2".
www.peterforsell.com

[twokatmew]

Thanks for clearing that up, do you know the FL required for 1:1 with the 250?

This one with SMC 135mm, comparing that with my 105mm dedicated macro, it seems like almost the same magnification.

Yes. Magnification of the Raynox 250 (8 diopters) on a 135mm lens is 1.08x, just slightly more than 1:1.

Minimum magnification = (Focal_Length_in_meters) x Diopters, e.g.:

.135 * 8 = 1.08

[Marc Sabatella]

But while the 250 will give 1:1 on a 135mm at infinity focus, it will do much better than that at minimum focus. Depending on the minimum focus of the lens itself, you'd probably get 1:1 at 100 or lower. I know I get basically 1:1 on my M135/3.5 at minimum focus distance with my Raynox *150*, so I know the 250 will do better.

[VaughnA]

I've been boring everyone with bee shots with my 16-45 lately. Well I got a Raynox a couple of weeks ago but since I've been on the road I haven't had a chance to play with it, until today. Probably the best 43.00 investment I've made in a while.. DCR 150 & 55-300, with flash at F16-22. I'm extremely impressed..

Edit: DCR-150...

[mikeSF]

those bees are killer!

I finally got around to pulling my Raynox out of the bag yesterday and got this fly that became trapped in some mesh fencing.



Raynox 150 attached to Vivitar 90mm/2.5 macro (Komine).

[melonbaobao]

I bought the Raynox 150 last week. These two pics show quite a bit of vignetting (i already cropped a little bit around the edges). The raynox seems a little difficult for me to use - I know if I zoom in more then the vignetting will be less, but at the higher lengths I get massive blur due to shaking, and somehow the shallow DOF is hard to work with.





Maybe next weekend I try again with a monopod or a tripod.

[audiobomber]

I bought the Raynox 150 last week. These two pics show quite a bit of vignetting (i already cropped a little bit around the edges). The raynox seems a little difficult for me to use - I know if I zoom in more then the vignetting will be less, but at the higher lengths I get massive blur due to shaking, and somehow the shallow DOF is hard to work with.

Maybe next weekend I try again with a monopod or a tripod.

The photos didn't appear in your post.

I assume you're using the 55-300mm? You won't get vignetting if you set the lens to infinity focus and use the zoom to vary magnification. That will get you from 1:2.6 at 55mm (barely stronger than the 55-300 on its own), to greater than 1.4:1 at 300mm.

I bought a monopod but I find I don't get any more stability with it than I do handheld. I know that's not universal, but it's true for others I've read about too. A tripod is terrific, but becomes a hindrance when your subject is moving (flowers in a breeze, insects).

[melonbaobao]

Thanks for your help Dan, I'll give the infinity focus a try this week.
Updated the post before to get the photos showing up also.

[VaughnA]

Doesn't compare to Mikes but still loving the raynox.

[wowtip]

I finally got around to pulling my Raynox out of the bag yesterday and got this fly that became trapped in some mesh fencing.

Raynox 150 attached to Vivitar 90mm/2.5 macro (Komine).

Isn't that cheating? Trapping the fly in a net.. Yes, they are hard to get close to, but...

Just kidding, really great shot. Would you share with us your lighting setup?