[newarts]

Would this be a better solution than a raynox? A Kenko 1.5X Teleplus - 4 Element DG Auto Focus? I see alot of macro pics taken with one of these on it.

That won't be as useful for the Raynox for macros, but it'd be useful for other purposes perhaps.

It would increase your lens' magnification from 0.28x by 1.5x to 0.42x.

[audiobomber]

Raynox 150 with the DA 55-300mm, I think I will go with this option. The iq on imtheguy's post of the black widow was great, really nice shot, how close were you from the spider? I guess the reynox 250 would be alittle overkill, though I could get it and just lower the zoom to compensate.

The entire mid-range of the 55-300mm vignettes horribly with the Raynox 250. You can only use the ends of the zoom range, so you either get not much magnification or a whole lot of magnification. The Raynox 150 gets you about 1:1.6, and allows a longer working distance, about double that of the 250. For insects I'd recommend the 150 with the 55-300.

[Marc Sabatella]

Would this be a better solution than a raynox? A Kenko 1.5X Teleplus - 4 Element DG Auto Focus? I see alot of macro pics taken with one of these on it.

Maybe if you already have a fairly close focusing lens, but a teleconverter won't allow your lens to focus closer - it just increase the magnification at any given distance., by a factor of 1.5. Conversely, the Raynox (like any other diopter) doesn't increase magnification at a given distance, but allows you to work at *much* shorter distances (inches instead of feet). This usually makes a *much* bigger difference than simply adding a TC.

So the TC would help more than Raynox with a lens that already focuses very close - within a foot, say. Whereas the Raynox will help more with all other lenses.

Of course, using *both* would do even more, but really, the Raynox on a decent telephoto lens is already more magnification than you'd normally need.