[elkarrde]

That goes against my experience (18-250 zoom + 50mm reversed) - if I stop down the 50mm below f/2.8 (with the zoom at 250mm) the image circle no longer fills the screen. If I leave it closed at f/22 (min, aperture I think) all I see is a small dot of light in the middle of the viewfinder. Then I use the zoom to control aperture/DOF.

yeah, i had just the same experience - so i kept the outer lens wide open, and controlled DOF with aperture on the inner lens.

combo longer inner lens + shorter outer is winning party, although it can be quite big combination. have you tried reverse-mounting wide-angle lens directly on camera - only one reversed lens? i found that combination easier to use (with reversed 28mm lens, at least)

[audiobomber]

I am confused, are you saying that the raynox lens are useless compared to the da 35 ltd? Or that they are useless on the DA 35 ltd...
Because I have found them to be very useful on all of my primes and even on my P&S. If I dont want to carry the vivi 105 macro, I just throw the raynox in the bag with my old glass.

I agree. Even though I have a D FA 100mm macro and a Raynox 250, I still bought a Raynox 150 for its portability and yes, high quality. I don't see that it significantly deteriorates the IQ of any lens I mount it on.

Aside from high quality, portability and ease of use (no need to change lenses), I bought the DCR-150 because:
- The Raynox 250 vignettes badly on the 55-300 at about 70-150mm (IIRC)
- The 150 has about double the working distance
- At 300mm focal length and 1.7:1 macro, the Raynox 150 is enough for most anything. The DCR-250 at 2:7:1 is nice to have but hard to handle in the field.

Some Raynox 250 samples, K100DS and various lenses.

Picasa Web Albums - Dan - Raynox 250


-

[falconeye]

Well, I must have been too sloppy in my reply. Let me try to clarify. And I may have been wrong, of course

You lost me with the comment about a 35mm ltd. [...] I disagree with you on the use of a microscope for magnification though for certain kinds of macro shots. Good scopes can go beyond macro and stack lenses, especially trinocular configurations.

The 35mm ltd. wasn't mentioned. But it does exist. In Europe, due to its nice pricing (339.- USD), it rules up to 1:1 magnification. On a K20D, it resolves 5µm and any experiments up to this resolution have been abandoned by most Pentaxians over here. This is what I tried to say.

Of course, Raynox equipment is nice if you haven't a DA 35 ltd. But I would always save the money to buy into the 35mm ltd. instead.

That goes against my experience (18-250 zoom + 50mm reversed) - if I stop down the 50mm below f/2.8 (with the zoom at 250mm) the image circle no longer fills the screen. If I leave it closed at f/22 (min, aperture I think) all I see is a small dot of light in the middle of the viewfinder.

This is strange and shouldn't happen. It didn't happen in my case (300mm + 50mm). It also cannot happen taking the laws of optics into account. Because, between the two lenses, you have parallel rays of light coming from the focus plane of the 50mm. You must have had an imperfection in your optical setup. Like focussing the zoom to something other than infinity. Or I am wrong and only had good luck.

I am confused, are you saying that the raynox lens are useless compared to the da 35 ltd? Or that they are useless on the DA 35 ltd...

What I said above. But your macro images are superb images. Congratulations. Esp. the capture of details in the bee's eye is an achievement. But, as I said, a DA 35 ltd. could have done it as well, "out of the box".
You may catch a little bit about the enthusiasm in this 1286 posts thread here:
DigitalFotoNetz.de :: Thema anzeigen - smc DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited

Which is why I took it for granted that our thread here is about "larger than 1:1 macro" photography


EDIT:
Wait a second... your first image is a fly, not a bee, right? I ask because fly eye ommatidia are larger than bee eye ommatidia.

[Blue]

The 35mm ltd. wasn't mentioned. But it does exist. In Europe, due to its nice pricing (339.- USD), it rules up to 1:1 magnification. On a K20D, it resolves 5µm and any experiments up to this resolution have been abandoned by most Pentaxians over here. This is what I tried to say.

I am glad it exists because I have one in my bag! I'd be wondering what that thing in my bag is.

What I said above. But your macro images are superb images. Congratulations. Esp. the capture of details in the bee's eye is an achievement. But, as I said, a DA 35 ltd. could have done it as well, "out of the box".
You may catch a little bit about the enthusiasm in this 1286 posts thread here:
DigitalFotoNetz.de :: Thema anzeigen - smc DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited

Which is why I took it for granted that our thread here is about "larger than 1:1 macro" photography


EDIT:
Wait a second... your first image is a fly, not a bee, right? I ask because fly eye ommatidia are larger than bee eye ommatidia.

Thanks for the nice comments on the fly / bee shots

And you are right the DA 35 could get those right out of the box... although I personally would not be shooting 1:1 bee or wasp macros with the 35mm

that is just too close for me....

[Blue]

Thanks for the nice comments on the fly / bee shots

And you are right the DA 35 could get those right out of the box... although I personally would not be shooting 1:1 bee or wasp macros with the 35mm

that is just too close for me....

I have done it with a 50mm lens and a diopter to get shots of paper wasps on the next. Just do NOT use the flash. When the alarm pheromones go up, all hell breaks loose!

Yea, but the 15mm might just bee the difference... 35mm = OUCH 50mm = click and run 8^)

[falconeye]

Yea, but the 15mm might just bee the difference... 35mm = OUCH 50mm = click and run 8^)

People tend to believe that a 35mm Macro is a wide angle lens. It isn't. At 1:1 magnification, it has an effective focal length of 70mm and a distance to subject of 70mm.

That's far enough for a bee. I tried...
And if you are still scared, go for 1:2 macro (105mm distance to subject).

As far as FoV is concerned, a DA 35mm Macro focused at 1:1 has a FoV as a 105mm film camera lens focused at infinity. This used to be called a TELE lens, my dear friends...

[Blue]

People tend to believe that a 35mm Macro is a wide angle lens. It isn't. At 1:1 magnification, it has an effective focal length of 70mm and a distance to subject of 70mm.

That's far enough for a bee. I tried...
And if you are still scared, go for 1:2 macro (105mm distance to subject).

As far as FoV is concerned, a DA 35mm Macro at 1:1 has a FoV as a 105mm film camera lens. This used to be called a TELE lens, my dear friends...

Field of view is one thing and focal length is another. The lens field of view depends on the focal length of the lens, the size of the sensor, and the distance to the subject. I know that you know this but wanted to clarify it to people that may be new to macro photography and lenses before someone kills a kitten and says the 35mm ltd is the same focal length as a 52mm lens on film.

There is actually a decent description on wikipedia about AoV and FoV>Angle of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia