[Mmmm]

I've finally managed to get hold of the 150 and have done some careful measurements:

My sensor is 23.6mm wide

Infinity focus with 150 attached

This was 200mm from the very end of the Raynox. (lense probably recessed about 8mm) to give 23.6/56=0.42x magnification (about 1:2.4)

Closest focus with 150 attached

This was 55mm from the end of the Raynox - gives 23.6/16=1.48x magnification (about 1.5:1)

So the working distance range is 55mm - 200mm
with magnifications of 1.5:1 - 1:2.4


So what about a comparison of working distances at the same magification?
Closest focus of Tamron 90mm without 150

This was 94mm from the end of the lense - gives magnification of 23.6/23=1.03x (1.03:1)

Setting up the lense with the raynox attached so that the exact same area is in the frame: This turned out to be where the lense markings read exactly 1.1ft
lense set to 1.1ft with 150 attached

The distance from the end of the Raynox to the subject was 80mm at this magnification
So you lose about 94mm - 80mm = 1.4cm of working space when you attach the raynox at this magnification.

Looking at the first image, the max working distance with the raynox attached is 200mm which fits in 56mm of ruler
Tamron 90mm at 56mm width without 150 attached

The working distance here was 225mm

so 225mm - 200mm = 2.5cm lost working distance.

and some pictures comparing the lense at closest focus with and without the 150 - so you can really see the difference.
With
:

Without



In Summary:

The working distance range is 55mm - 200mm with magnifications of 1.5x - 0.42x (1.5:1 - 1:2.4)

At 1:1 magnification the 150 requires you to be 1.5 cm closer to the subject than you have to be without the 150.
At the other end (0.42x magnification) you need to be 2.5cm closer.

Conclusion:

First of all, the quality is great and there is no sign of vignetting at any magnification with this lense.

The increase in magnification is not really that much with the Tamron 90mm - from 1x to 1.5x - with a hit of 1.5cm working distance at the 1x end. From my pencil shots I realize that I really want to get closer than this...

So I'll be sending it back and getting a 250..(it's only £5 more at the moment). Hopefully the working distance won't be too extreme...

---

Last edited by Mmmm; 05-23-2012 at 06:09 AM.

[Mmmm]

Some uncropped pics with the Tamron 90mm and the 150:

Sheild Bug


Ladybird


Blue Greenfly


Pollen Beetles

[Mmmm]

I sent the 150 back and am now the proud owner of the 250!

I've done some tests with my tamron 90mm and here are the results along with those of the DCR-150.

Infinity focus:
DCR-150
Working distance 200mm
Width 56mm (0.42x or 1:2.4)

DCR-250
Working distance 120mm
Width 33mm (0.72x or 1:1.4)

Closest focus:
DCR-150
Working distance 55mm
Width 16mm (1.48x or 1.5:1)

DCR-250
Working distance 45mm
Width 13mm (1.82x or 1.8:1)

16mm width (1.48x closest with DCR-150)
DRC-150
Working distance 55mm

DRC-250
Working distance 57mm

1:1 focus
No diopter
Working distance of 94mm (0.96ft on focus dial - closest focus)

DCR-150
Working distance of 80mm (1.1ft on focus dial)

DCR-250
Working distance of 83mm (1.5ft on focus dial)


Here are three pencil shots at closest focus:
Pencil at closest focus without any diopter


Pencil at closest focus with DCR-150


Pencil at closest focus with DCR-250


Incredible results - The DRC-250 actually has better working distances than the DCR-150 for 1:1 or greater magnification!!!!!

I'm really glad I sent the 150 back

A really handy thing I've just noticed is that turning the focus limiter on on the lense with the DCR-250 attached ensures that all shots will be over 1:1...very nice - so I'll know that if I need to get further away I should remove the raynox....

[Rabe]

Just got my Raynox 250 and had a little bit of a go on the DA L 55-300mm. Despite what people have said about vignetting, I have only experienced it badly between about 120-200mm and the rest don't suffer at all.

Ant was about 2mm long, Spider was about 2cm. Am struggling with DOF though as expected. At F/32 its about 1.5-2mm wide at 300mm. All shots so far have been hand held.

Will post some more pictures later with a 50mm 1.7.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[bpv_UW]

A couple with the Raynox DCR-150 and my newly acquired F135/2.8 (a great combination!).









-Brandon

[DizziPixel]

Thanks for the examples. I left the SLR world for a while because nothing digital in DSLR seemed to justify the price for me. A couple "Mega-Zooms" pacified me for a while. I jumped first on a used *ist and liked it, got it for cheap. Within a month, I got my K5. A few lenses later, I yearned for a usable set of extension tubes, but there just are none that couple the lens and camera and couldn't find an answer here. I happened onto Raynox by accident on Flickr and though "this is it!". So I ordered a DCR-250, then checked back here on the forums to see if someone here hadn't found this solution to macro. This wasn't even mentioned in the extension threads, to the best of my knowledge/memory. I can't wait to get this and try it out, then post to the extension tube thread, unless one of you beat me to it. Again, thanks, this is a great find!
Tim

[audiobomber]

I yearned for a usable set of extension tubes, but there just are none that couple the lens and camera and couldn't find an answer here.

Some of us have bought inexpensive 2X and/or 3X convertors which have auto contacts. If you remove the glass elements, you end up with extension tubes with electronic control of aperture, along with P-TTL flash capability. I bought a JC Penney Auto 2X for $20, everything works except AF. It gives me about 25mm of extension.

I'm still trying to figure out some of the relative advantages of tubes vs achromatic diopters. So far I know that convenience favours the Raynox (no lens change), but an extension tube doesn't add the diopter's slight aberrations (CA, field curvature, coma). I can calculate magnification and subject distances, but I'm still trying to get a handle on relative DOF and effective aperture.

I've tried reversing rings and reversed lenses, and I prefer a Raynox to either of these. I haven't made up my mind yet about a Raynox vs auto tubes. You can't beat a dedicated macro lens for IQ and ease of use, but adding tubes or a diopter to a macro lens lets you get beyond 1:1, which is sometimes what you want.

[newarts]

....
... I'm still trying to get a handle on relative DOF and effective aperture.

DOF is directly proportional to effective f-stop. All else being equal, if two systems have the same effective aperture (f-stop) they will have the same DOF. If one has double the effective f-stop it'll have double the depth of field. If effective f-stops are the same then exposure times will be the same.

Effective aperture doesn't change with a closeup lens.

Effective aperture does change with extension tubes:

Neff = N(1+m/p) where m is subject magnification and p is pupillary magnification (the ratio of the lens' rear pupil to its front pupil). The pupil is size of the aperture you see when you look into the lens. You can estimate it by looking at the rear of the lens & measuring the apparent opening - that's the rear pupil; now estimate the front pupil and calculate the ratio, p.



Say you are using this lens to take a macro with a magnification of 1.5x, the f-stop on the lens is set to f:5.6; The effective f-stop is:

Neff = 5.6(1+1.5/2.52) = 8.9

You will find lenses around 50mm to usually be symmetric while wide angle lenses have a pupillary ratio greater than one while telephoto lenses are the opposite.

Many people just assume the pupillary ratio = 1.

Dave in Iowa

[audiobomber]

Effective aperture doesn't change with a closeup lens.

But effective focal length changes, so you need to calculate that before you can use a DOF calculator.

I appreciate you describing the math, but it doesn't look simple enough to use in the field. I should shoot some scales with each system to get an appreciation for the differences in DOF and shutter speeds.

[newarts]

But effective focal length changes, so you need to calculate that before you can use a DOF calculator.

I appreciate you describing the math, but it doesn't look simple enough to use in the field. I should shoot some scales with each system to get an appreciation for the differences in DOF and shutter speeds.

effective.focal.length = f'f"/(f'+f"-d) where d is distance separating rear principal plane of close-up lens and front principal plane of camera's lens.

These locations are rarely known - except for a single group diopter like a Raynox. But I don't think the DoF calculators are usually good for macros.

The math for effective aperture isn't hard to do in one's mind or on one's smartphone. Estimate the pupillary ratio and write it on the lens barrel (or write the whole equation on the lens-cap maybe?)

N(1+m/2.5) for example; or just P=2.5 if you can remember the formula.

If you want the same effective f-number with the same subject, magnification, and lighting conditions and two different lenses, just adjust the f-stops to keep the same exposure time - then the effective f-stops are equal. This may be a way to calibrate for effective aperture; take a series of shots with same subject & lighting but different mags - keep track of how the exposure changes with mag - it shouldn't change for that lens.

Something to be aware of: the effective aperture factor affects diffraction softening too. If you've a lens that diffraction softens above say, f11, the aperture you set on the lens barrel should be less than f11/(1+m/p).

Dave in thirsty Iowa

[Deimos]

very nice bpv, heres one xposted to tammy club

Tamron 90 Di + Raynox 150

[stephanbennett]

Thank you. This makes so much sense.

[stephanbennett]

I sent the 150 back and am now the proud owner of the 250!

I've done some tests with my tamron 90mm and here are the results along with those of the DCR-150.

Infinity focus:
DCR-150
Working distance 200mm
Width 56mm (0.42x or 1:2.4)

DCR-250
Working distance 120mm
Width 33mm (0.72x or 1:1.4)

Closest focus:
DCR-150
Working distance 55mm
Width 16mm (1.48x or 1.5:1)

DCR-250
Working distance 45mm
Width 13mm (1.82x or 1.8:1)

16mm width (1.48x closest with DCR-150)
DRC-150
Working distance 55mm

DRC-250
Working distance 57mm

1:1 focus
No diopter
Working distance of 94mm (0.96ft on focus dial - closest focus)

DCR-150
Working distance of 80mm (1.1ft on focus dial)

DCR-250
Working distance of 83mm (1.5ft on focus dial)


Here are three pencil shots at closest focus:
Pencil at closest focus without any diopter


Pencil at closest focus with DCR-150


Pencil at closest focus with DCR-250


Incredible results - The DRC-250 actually has better working distances than the DCR-150 for 1:1 or greater magnification!!!!!

I'm really glad I sent the 150 back

A really handy thing I've just noticed is that turning the focus limiter on on the lense with the DCR-250 attached ensures that all shots will be over 1:1...very nice - so I'll know that if I need to get further away I should remove the raynox....

Thank you this makes so much sense to me now.

[Culture]

My first macro picture with my tammy and raynox 150. First of all it was very difficult finding a bug as autumn is here. Then it was very difficult focusing. Trying to stay steady and squinting the eye for a long period of time brings tears to the eyes.

But that was not the worst problem. The problem was light. At F11, ISO 1600, I could get only 1/60s. How is that possible. Sunset was around 19:30 and I took this at 18:30.

I even had one of those cheap macro led ring mounted.

[hpk]

k5 - a135 2.8 @ f11 w/ raynox 150 - vignetting added on purpose