The Raynox Macro club

**jeffshaddix** · 03-21-2011, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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.

I'd use it on digital, but keep in mind that close-up filters work by reducing the effective focal length. For example, an 8 diopter close-up lens (i.e. the 250) would convert the 31mm to a 24mm. That's why I'm interested. And yes I know it wouldn't be true macro (around 1:2.7 to be precise), but that's the same magnification I'd get out of the Sigma 24mm 1.8 (or anything else that wide).

If I could get away with an FA31 and a Raynox, that's a lot less cash to spend and bulk in my kit. Plus, then I'd have the flexibility of an awesome all-around normal lens and a quick conversion to wide-angle close-up.

Chex · 03-22-2011, 12:27 AM

Seeing as you already have a 90mm macro, why would you want a raynox? Or are you not happy with the results of your Tokina? I think if your looking for better IQ for macro maybe look to the D FA 100mm WR, and get rid of your 90 if it's not doin it for you. The FA 31 I think would be VERY hard to focus with a Raynox 250, and a 150 would be more of a general close up than macro.. but it would probably be workable at least.

**jeffshaddix** · 03-22-2011, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Chex

Seeing as you already have a 90mm macro, why would you want a raynox? Or are you not happy with the results of your Tokina? I think if your looking for better IQ for macro maybe look to the D FA 100mm WR, and get rid of your 90 if it's not doin it for you. The FA 31 I think would be VERY hard to focus with a Raynox 250, and a 150 would be more of a general close up than macro.. but it would probably be workable at least.

The Tokina is practically perfect for my normal macro needs...the IQ is out of this world even wide open at f/2.5. The reason I'm interested in Raynox is the ability to use it on super fast primes like my Voigtlander, and the convenience of combining it with a fast wide-normal to get a fast wide-angle close-up setup.

Wide-angle macro/close-up can create some incredible perspective artistic shots. I wouldn't use it for standard macro work, my Tokina fits that bill fine (or the DFA 100mm like you mentioned). The Raynox setup I'd be shooting for would solely be for creative ventures.

Chex · 03-22-2011, 10:45 PM

gotcha, I can't imagine trying to capture a bug or something like that using a 31 or wider + a raynox 250..

heartbeat · 03-23-2011, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by minahasa

Hello all..
Just want to ask whether this lens is good:
..I'm about to bid on it, so is it on a league with SMC M 50/1.7 ? Is this lens has the 'A' setting?

This lens has no A setting. Auto means that your aperture ring will automatically close and open.
I have this lens for 1 year. In this month i have bought Pentax M 50/1.4 lens and as for me Sears 50/1.7 is more better. I like Sears colors. For at least 5 month I shot with wide open aperture ring.
Now I do not wont to sell this lens.
If you want more photo please contact me.

I have bought sears 28/2.8 lens on last week. It become usable from f4. In wide open mode it softs

elandel · 04-17-2011, 07:52 AM

Hi
I need some help. My optics are: 18-55 and 70-300 Tamron

Which Raynox is a better buy: DCR-150 or 250?

My thinking is ti buy DCR-250 so a can use it with long and short zooms.
With my 18-55 whict ratio will it have. I know that with the 70-300 it exeeds 1:1 but I'm not sure.

Thank for you replys.

audiobomber · 04-17-2011, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Chex

The FA 31 I think would be VERY hard to focus with a Raynox 250, and a 150 would be more of a general close up than macro.. but it would probably be workable at least.

I disagree with that. Why would the Raynox 250 be difficult to focus on a 31mm? The wider the angle, the greater the DOF, so it's an advantage. The subject distance is always a little tight with a 250, but not tighter on the 31mm than on other lenses. I have no trouble at all focussing with the 250 on my FA 35.

audiobomber · 04-17-2011, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Chex

gotcha, I can't imagine trying to capture a bug or something like that using a 31 or wider + a raynox 250..

The only issue with bug photography and a wide normal is magnification. Here's a honey bee shot with the Raynox 250 and FA 35mm. This would be very close to what you would see with a 31mm. It was not hard to shoot at all:

audiobomber · 04-17-2011, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by elandel

Hi
I need some help. My optics are: 18-55 and 70-300 Tamron

Which Raynox is a better buy: DCR-150 or 250?

My thinking is ti buy DCR-250 so a can use it with long and short zooms.
With my 18-55 whict ratio will it have. I know that with the 70-300 it exeeds 1:1 but I'm not sure.

Thank for you replys.

Get the Raynox 150. If you want to know why, then I suggest you read the thread. This has been asked and answered many times.

Marc Sabatella · 04-17-2011, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by elandel

Hi
I need some help. My optics are: 18-55 and 70-300 Tamron

Which Raynox is a better buy: DCR-150 or 250?

My thinking is ti buy DCR-250 so a can use it with long and short zooms.
With my 18-55 whict ratio will it have. I know that with the 70-300 it exeeds 1:1 but I'm not sure.

I agree with Dan. Get the 150 unless you have read this thread carefully, understand what you'd be getting getting yourself into with the 250, and are sure that's what you want.

But forget using it with the 18-55; that one already focuses almost as close without the Raynox as it would with.

McDunk · 04-28-2011, 12:54 PM

Questions, Whats the big diffrence between 150 and 250 ? Do both of the suit the Pentax SMC-DA 55-300/4-5,8 ED and the original 18-55m lens ?

Penumbra · 04-30-2011, 02:51 PM

Well met gents!

I just joined the club (tonight the R-150 reached me from the USA thanks to a friend).

Can't wait to try it out!

McDunk: 250 offers better magnification but it'll be very hard to use (focus) with it. You'll need a tripod for every macro shot you'll try. The 150 gives smaller magnification but it's easier to focus and catch a good shot with it. You'd be better buying the 150, people who have both lens say the 150 is what they mostly use.

Chex · 05-01-2011, 12:33 AM

I'm wondering what the difference between the Raynox 150 and the old Pentax Close Up lens I have, its a 49mm screw on that has slight magnification and of course takes away infinity focus etc. I generally use it on 43 and 55 but I am considering adapting it for a few other lenses of mine. OR getting the 150 for them...

elandel · 05-01-2011, 01:10 AM

Bought the 250 because the 150 was not available. Must say you're very right: it's very difficult to use with the 70-300, but with some practise some shots can be taken. As soon as it is availale will buy the 150 to use with longer focal lens.

As soon as possible want to try the 250 with my 135 f/3.5 M lens.

audiobomber · 05-01-2011, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by elandel

Bought the 250 because the 150 was not available. Must say you're very right: it's very difficult to use with the 70-300, but with some practise some shots can be taken.

To make this combo more user-friendly, set focus on the Tamron to infinity and use the zoom to vary magnification. You still have to contend with the 250's very tight working distance but magnification won't be so extreme.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Raynox 150 not giving me better macro :(	SirJangly	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	09-24-2010 10:56 AM
Question about Raynox options but not as a macro...	brecklundin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-31-2010 12:15 AM
First Raynox Macro Shots	moovinfast	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-29-2008 03:55 PM
New to Macro - Want to try a Raynox but which one?	JRock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	08-17-2008 12:49 AM

03-21-2011, 07:06 PM	#271
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by audiobomber 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. I'd use it on digital, but keep in mind that close-up filters work by reducing the effective focal length. For example, an 8 diopter close-up lens (i.e. the 250) would convert the 31mm to a 24mm. That's why I'm interested. And yes I know it wouldn't be true macro (around 1:2.7 to be precise), but that's the same magnification I'd get out of the Sigma 24mm 1.8 (or anything else that wide). If I could get away with an FA31 and a Raynox, that's a lot less cash to spend and bulk in my kit. Plus, then I'd have the flexibility of an awesome all-around normal lens and a quick conversion to wide-angle close-up.

03-22-2011, 12:27 AM	#272
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Seeing as you already have a 90mm macro, why would you want a raynox? Or are you not happy with the results of your Tokina? I think if your looking for better IQ for macro maybe look to the D FA 100mm WR, and get rid of your 90 if it's not doin it for you. The FA 31 I think would be VERY hard to focus with a Raynox 250, and a 150 would be more of a general close up than macro.. but it would probably be workable at least.

03-22-2011, 10:10 PM	#273
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by Chex Seeing as you already have a 90mm macro, why would you want a raynox? Or are you not happy with the results of your Tokina? I think if your looking for better IQ for macro maybe look to the D FA 100mm WR, and get rid of your 90 if it's not doin it for you. The FA 31 I think would be VERY hard to focus with a Raynox 250, and a 150 would be more of a general close up than macro.. but it would probably be workable at least. The Tokina is practically perfect for my normal macro needs...the IQ is out of this world even wide open at f/2.5. The reason I'm interested in Raynox is the ability to use it on super fast primes like my Voigtlander, and the convenience of combining it with a fast wide-normal to get a fast wide-angle close-up setup. Wide-angle macro/close-up can create some incredible perspective artistic shots. I wouldn't use it for standard macro work, my Tokina fits that bill fine (or the DFA 100mm like you mentioned). The Raynox setup I'd be shooting for would solely be for creative ventures.

03-22-2011, 10:45 PM	#274
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	gotcha, I can't imagine trying to capture a bug or something like that using a 31 or wider + a raynox 250..

03-23-2011, 12:26 AM	#275
heartbeat New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Kiev, Ukraine Posts: 4	Originally posted by minahasa Hello all.. Just want to ask whether this lens is good: ..I'm about to bid on it, so is it on a league with SMC M 50/1.7 ? Is this lens has the 'A' setting? This lens has no A setting. Auto means that your aperture ring will automatically close and open. I have this lens for 1 year. In this month i have bought Pentax M 50/1.4 lens and as for me Sears 50/1.7 is more better. I like Sears colors. For at least 5 month I shot with wide open aperture ring. Now I do not wont to sell this lens. If you want more photo please contact me. I have bought sears 28/2.8 lens on last week. It become usable from f4. In wide open mode it softs

04-17-2011, 07:52 AM	#276
elandel Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 42	Hi I need some help. My optics are: 18-55 and 70-300 Tamron Which Raynox is a better buy: DCR-150 or 250? My thinking is ti buy DCR-250 so a can use it with long and short zooms. With my 18-55 whict ratio will it have. I know that with the 70-300 it exeeds 1:1 but I'm not sure. Thank for you replys.

04-17-2011, 08:16 AM	#277
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806 Original Poster	Originally posted by Chex The FA 31 I think would be VERY hard to focus with a Raynox 250, and a 150 would be more of a general close up than macro.. but it would probably be workable at least. I disagree with that. Why would the Raynox 250 be difficult to focus on a 31mm? The wider the angle, the greater the DOF, so it's an advantage. The subject distance is always a little tight with a 250, but not tighter on the 31mm than on other lenses. I have no trouble at all focussing with the 250 on my FA 35.

04-17-2011, 08:24 AM	#278
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806 Original Poster	Originally posted by Chex gotcha, I can't imagine trying to capture a bug or something like that using a 31 or wider + a raynox 250.. The only issue with bug photography and a wide normal is magnification. Here's a honey bee shot with the Raynox 250 and FA 35mm. This would be very close to what you would see with a 31mm. It was not hard to shoot at all:

04-17-2011, 08:28 AM	#279
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806 Original Poster	Originally posted by elandel Hi I need some help. My optics are: 18-55 and 70-300 Tamron Which Raynox is a better buy: DCR-150 or 250? My thinking is ti buy DCR-250 so a can use it with long and short zooms. With my 18-55 whict ratio will it have. I know that with the 70-300 it exeeds 1:1 but I'm not sure. Thank for you replys. Get the Raynox 150. If you want to know why, then I suggest you read the thread. This has been asked and answered many times.

04-17-2011, 08:54 AM	#280
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by elandel Hi I need some help. My optics are: 18-55 and 70-300 Tamron Which Raynox is a better buy: DCR-150 or 250? My thinking is ti buy DCR-250 so a can use it with long and short zooms. With my 18-55 whict ratio will it have. I know that with the 70-300 it exeeds 1:1 but I'm not sure. I agree with Dan. Get the 150 unless you have read this thread carefully, understand what you'd be getting getting yourself into with the 250, and are sure that's what you want. But forget using it with the 18-55; that one already focuses almost as close without the Raynox as it would with.

04-28-2011, 12:54 PM	#281
McDunk New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Stromsund Posts: 23	Questions, Whats the big diffrence between 150 and 250 ? Do both of the suit the Pentax SMC-DA 55-300/4-5,8 ED and the original 18-55m lens ?

04-30-2011, 02:51 PM	#282
Penumbra Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Suceava, Romania Photos: Albums Posts: 139	Well met gents! I just joined the club (tonight the R-150 reached me from the USA thanks to a friend). Can't wait to try it out! McDunk: 250 offers better magnification but it'll be very hard to use (focus) with it. You'll need a tripod for every macro shot you'll try. The 150 gives smaller magnification but it's easier to focus and catch a good shot with it. You'd be better buying the 150, people who have both lens say the 150 is what they mostly use.

05-01-2011, 12:33 AM	#283
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	I'm wondering what the difference between the Raynox 150 and the old Pentax Close Up lens I have, its a 49mm screw on that has slight magnification and of course takes away infinity focus etc. I generally use it on 43 and 55 but I am considering adapting it for a few other lenses of mine. OR getting the 150 for them...

05-01-2011, 01:10 AM	#284
elandel Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 42	Bought the 250 because the 150 was not available. Must say you're very right: it's very difficult to use with the 70-300, but with some practise some shots can be taken. As soon as it is availale will buy the 150 to use with longer focal lens. As soon as possible want to try the 250 with my 135 f/3.5 M lens.

05-01-2011, 06:30 AM	#285
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806 Original Poster	Originally posted by elandel Bought the 250 because the 150 was not available. Must say you're very right: it's very difficult to use with the 70-300, but with some practise some shots can be taken. To make this combo more user-friendly, set focus on the Tamron to infinity and use the zoom to vary magnification. You still have to contend with the 250's very tight working distance but magnification won't be so extreme.