[WPRESTO]

Got it! Thanks!
I've always equated faster lens to aperture. When Adam said faster lens, I assumed he meant what I was thinking.

On the two Raynox lens adapters, I always thought, after reading it here, that the 250 was for shorter lens of less focal length of 100, and the 150 for longer lenses over 100. But I tried the 150 on my Sears/Samyang 135mm f2.8 and the magnification wasn't what I expected. So any speculation which of the two Raynox should be used with which focal length?

As a general rule, achromatic close-up filters work best on modest telephoto lenses, something in the 75~200mm range. Any zoom lens with a Raynox attached will probably provide the best IQ if set within this range. For example, I would set a 55~300mm at about 100~150mm for best results with the highest magnification at 150mm with the 250 attached. The 150 vs 250 Raynox do not have different "best" focal lengths.

RE: No matter what focal length lens or what zoom FL has a Raynox attached, if the lens is set to infinity, the distance from the front of the Raynox to the subject will be about eight inches with the 150, and about four inches with the 250. Think about a 150mm lens focused to four inches. That is a deep macro.

[audiobomber]

As a general rule, achromatic close-up filters work best on modest telephoto lenses, something in the 75~200mm range. Any zoom lens with a Raynox attached will probably provide the best IQ if set within this range. For example, I would set a 55~300mm at about 100~150mm for best results with the highest magnification at 150mm with the 250 attached. The 150 vs 250 Raynox do not have different "best" focal lengths.

A Raynox 250 on a DA 55-300mm has strong vignetting throughout the middle range of the zoom, so 100-150mm would be quite compromised.

I've used both the DCR-150 and 250, on a Tamron 70-300mm and DA 55-300mm at 300mm focal length, where they provide extreme magnification. I mostly use the Raynox 250 on my 35mm, 50mm and 60mm primes where it performs very impressively. I see absolutely no reason to limit usage to 75-200mm lenses.

http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

[Doundounba]

Are these stacked images?

I always put all details on Flickr, but in short, the first (wasp) and third (ladybug) are single fames, while the second (damselfly) and fourth (dragonfly) are both five-frame focus stacks

[PenPusher]

I have just finished reading from page one all the way to here and I'm going back to page one to start again because I find the information contained in it is a goldmine and I need to make more notes, many thanks to all those who have contributed.

I will admit that I kind of glossed over the detailed calculations, this is strange because I can normally solve quite detailed technical problems but any maths above 2 + 2 = 4 and whats left of my brain immediately switches off.

It seems to me that provided you correctly pair a Raynox 150 or 250 to almost any lens that you normally carry in your bag with one or perhaps both of these lightweight accessories you are in a position to take macro photographs without breaking the bank, fiddling around with reversing rings/extension tubes or exposing the sensor to dust/pollen etc., a 49-52mm step up ring should solve most mounting problems.

I do note however that a dedicated macro lens will give you more depth of field and therefore yield more keepers but for somebody who only occasionally takes macros the Raynox solution seems ideal, you can always buy a dedicated macro lens if you become more dedicated to this branch of photography and know which focal length will suit your subjects best.

Its interesting that some members advocate tripods and others hand held, I'm sure I belong to the hand held school as there is always a wind around here and setting up a tripod with the depths of field involved would send me even further round the bend than I am already.

Its a pity that this club seems to be dormant at the moment as the images contained within it are extraordinary.

[Culture]

I am glad you have found us. You can contribute to our thread.
I still use the raynox. I have not posted much. I have used it at wedding this summer.
The macros I tried didnt turn out well. Mainly because I was impatient when I was shooting.

[WPRESTO]

I have just finished reading from page one all the way to here and I'm going back to page one to start again because I find the information contained in it is a goldmine and I need to make more notes, many thanks to all those who have contributed.

I will admit that I kind of glossed over the detailed calculations, this is strange because I can normally solve quite detailed technical problems but any maths above 2 + 2 = 4 and whats left of my brain immediately switches off.

It seems to me that provided you correctly pair a Raynox 150 or 250 to almost any lens that you normally carry in your bag with one or perhaps both of these lightweight accessories you are in a position to take macro photographs without breaking the bank, fiddling around with reversing rings/extension tubes or exposing the sensor to dust/pollen etc., a 49-52mm step up ring should solve most mounting problems.

I do note however that a dedicated macro lens will give you more depth of field and therefore yield more keepers but for somebody who only occasionally takes macros the Raynox solution seems ideal, you can always buy a dedicated macro lens if you become more dedicated to this branch of photography and know which focal length will suit your subjects best.

Its interesting that some members advocate tripods and others hand held, I'm sure I belong to the hand held school as there is always a wind around here and setting up a tripod with the depths of field involved would send me even further round the bend than I am already.

Its a pity that this club seems to be dormant at the moment as the images contained within it are extraordinary.

Just FYI: The general rules for DOF are: 1) for the same aperture and the same reproduction ratio (=magnification), DOF will be the same regardless of the lens focal length; and 2) for the same aperture and the same lens-to-subject distance, the shorter the FL the greater the DOF. I'm skeptical that there would be any difference in DOF using a close-up lenses versus a dedicated macro IF the aperture and reproduction ratio is the same. Sometimes the optimum macro image is obtained by backing away slightly rather than trying to fill the frame with the subject, then cropping during PP. The loss of IQ by cropping is compensated by a greater DOF on the subject. This is similar to finding the optimum aperture. Smaller apertures give greater DOF, but also start degrading IQ because of diffraction, so there's an optimum f-stop that gives good DOF for a macro subject, but without too much loss of IQ caused by diffraction. ALSO, my experiments putting the Raynox units on a variety of lenses indicates that not all are compatible. Some combinations had severe vignetting. Generally the best results will be obtained with the Raynox on the best lens you have because no attachment can make a lens better than it is without the attachment.

[Mike.P®]

Well I had to have a look and see if there was a Raynox lens club and it seems there is

Anyway, have one one for a few years now and have had some decent results with it but it went to the back of the cupboard when I got various other dedicated macro lenses but I re discovered it tonight and thought I would have a play with it on a F 135mm f/2.8

Only one shot as there is a definate lack of subjects out there atm but quite impressed with the combo I have to say.


Ok, just for a change ... A fly by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

[GoldMountain]

Anybody using a Raynox 250 on top of an 18-55mm lens for high quality close-ups? What is the focal distance? What is the furthest distance one can focus at for good quality shots?

[WPRESTO]

13 file stack, Raynox 250 on a Voigtlander 180mm f4 @ closest focusing distance. The flower is about 3mm across the petals.

[Doundounba]

Still shooting a lot with the DCR-250, which is almost permanently affixed to my D-FA 100mm WR, a combo to which I sometimes add the DA 1.4X tele-converter. Here are some recent shots, reposted from other threads.

[GoldMountain]

13 file stack, Raynox 250 on a Voigtlander 180mm f4 @ closest focusing distance. The flower is about 3mm across the petals.

WPRESTO - how do I access the other 12 files in the stack?

[WPRESTO]

WPRESTO - how do I access the other 12 files in the stack?

Unless I post each one of them separately, you cannot access them. RE: the posted image is a stack = focus stack = a composite of the best bits from 13 image files. If I were to post any one of those files, the DOF would be very shallow, no where near enough to get the front most and far most petals of the flower into focus.

[jcdoss]

This is at about 1:1 magnification using a Raynox 150 diopter. Thanks for tolerating my photo habit, little frog buddy!

[Mikesul]

I need to get my Raynox out more often. These are great photos.

[jcdoss]

Fluorite, Lit from Below
K-1 mII Ltd, M120/2.8, Raynox 150