[iasonis]

I have a quick question, could I use a macro diopter lens on a zoom telephoto lens(for example the Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED) for an inexpensive way to do macro photography? What would the negatives or positives be of this?

[X Man]

Yes, you certainly can. The positives are that it's cheap and requires nothing more complicated than screwing the diopter filter on the lens. AF will still work, as opposed to trying extension tubes where you lose AF.

The negatives are that IQ will be degraded. I'd have no problem recommending a cheap set of diopters to explore macro photography. Go for it!

Regards,
Mike

[pbo]

Try finding apochromatic ones - they are said to be of much higher quality than normal diopters. Some people recommend a Raynox DCR-250, though I've never used it. I've always used an achromatic diopter that came with one of my macro lenses from Promaster - and they used to sell the diopter alone for $20, but I can't find it in their list anymore...

Also, when using the diopter, zoom lens all the way in (to 200mm in your example) to achieve the most out of it.

[YJD]

I love my Raynox DCR-250 and it is cheap! Go for it, it works great. A good thing is that it can adapt to any lens (almost any).

Check this part of my site Capture Beauty: raynox. Not all pictures are with Raynox, but of course all the macros are.

Enjoy!

[newarts]

you might be happiest with the Raynox 150 rather than the 250 which is more powerful than needed for your 300mm lens.

The Raynox 150 on your 55-300mm lenswill give a range of magnifications up to almost 2x.

Iowa Dave

[res3567]

I have a quick question, could I use a macro diopter lens on a zoom telephoto lens(for example the Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED) for an inexpensive way to do macro photography? What would the negatives or positives be of this?

Check it:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/61939-raynox-flexability.html

[iasonis]

so basically i would zoom out to 300mm and use either the reynolds or an apochromatic lens? Would the above pentax 55-300 lens that I mentioned do well for me zoomed to 300mm and still be in focus? I want to take macro's of plantlife mostly but also of insects ect.

[imtheguy]

I use the Raynox 150 on my DA 55-300mm and get better results than i expected. When zoomed in past 200mm though the edges start getting weak even though the center stays very sharp up to 300mm. Its nice since i keep the Raynox in my pocket and can pop it on whatever lens i have (fits almost all) and not miss shots. I posted one in the Macro section if you want to look at the IQ of this combo, under my forum name of a large Black Widow Spider under difficult hand-held conditions. It was deep inside a cinder block and there were no lights and of course we could not disturb it. I should have used more DOF but it was actually my first real use of the Raynox in the field. Look at the shot and you may be sold. Think what you could have done with a tripod and a little light.
User Photo Gallery - Macro
full size
https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/16133/2_K20D6848c2.jpg

edit - the screw on close up filters truly suck compared to the Raynox IMO if you are thinking of going that route.

I use the raynox 250 with most of my primes and my DA 50-200...

With your longer zoom I agree with newarts (Dave)... the Raynox 150 might be the better option.

[iasonis]

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.

[flippedgazelle]

I've been using the Raynox 150 for several years, 1st on my Fuji S6000 superzoom, then on the Pentax K100D w/Tamron 70-300 lens. It's a wonderful combo, but some things to keep in mind:

AF may not work - it does not work for me at 300mm, although it does at 200mm. It's still pretty easy to use, though - just move the camera further/closer to the subject.

Be ready to use tiny apertures - for shots of insects, for example, I usually had to use f/16 - f/32.

Edit: Here's a link to a pic of a tick from 2 days ago. DA 50-200 @ 200mm, Raynox DCR-150, f/22. This little sucker is 1/4" long!
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/63392-little-fakker-tried-bite-me.html

[newarts]

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 bare lens has a maximum magnification of 0.28X
New Pentax lenses: Digital Photography Review

The minimum magnification with the Raynox 250 on your lens is 0.44x leaving a gap in possible magnifications from 0.28x to 0.44x

The minimum magnification with the Raynox 150 on your lens is 0.26x (when the lens is at 55mm, focused at infinity) so there's no such gap in magnifications available.

With the 250 there'll be situations where you can't "lower the zoom" enough, but can't get close enough without it.

With the 150 there'll be no situations in which you want to get just a little closer but can't.

Iowa Dave

[imtheguy]

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.

I was about 30cm/12" and zoomed in pretty far. The AF works fine but when stuck with a shallow dof, I find myself using AF to only to get started then just moving the camera ever so slightly to change how the dof is applied to the subject if its too thick to focus entirely, as the spider was. Like I said, maybe f/16 could have helped but not w/o some light and tripod. You take what you can get.

For the price, I can recommend the Raynox 150 in your pocket if you habitually use a DA 55-300mm, or equivalent, and want fast access to pretty good macro mode. I have a corner of my bag that has reversing ring, extension tube, close up filters and those items will never see the light of day for money shots. Of course, a real dedicated macro lens is an alternative but even though I just bougth one I must still venture out with only the 55-300 at times...and the Raynox in my pocket.

The DA 50-200 has been more useful with the Raynox 250 and Sony 3358, but they work well on old primes too...
these are all from early test shots with the lenses right after I got them...
Honestly I do not see much of a difference in IQ with these and my dedicated macro lenses... and they are a lot cheaper.

Helios 44M 58mm + raynox 250





Helios 44M + Sony 3358 close up lens




Jupiter 9 85mm + raynox 250

[iasonis]

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.