Originally posted by savoche Edit: Reminds me, I need to test the Raynox 150 on the 75-300. Maybe I don't "need" a macro for the GX80 just yet
I ran tests with Raynox units on several zoom lenses. Some basic findings as best I remember: On a wide-to-normal zoom there was severe vignetting at wider focal lengths. With one zoom (an old Tamron) even at the longest FL there was a near circular image - trimmed at top and bottom of frame - BUT the central image IQ was good to excellent with lot of detail visible and crisply rendered. On a tele zoom (55~300mm, original version) the best results (almost self-evident) was obtained at medium focal lengths = neither the shortest nor the longest. At the longest FL (300mm) the results were unacceptable. Were someone using the latter, I would recommend determining the best FL (probably around 100~140mm) then setting the zoom there and treating it as a prime lens, leave the zoom ring alone.
---------- Post added 07-31-19 at 06:39 AM ----------
Originally posted by savoche That's the problem with following threads where people tell you what gear they use - it's fuel for GAS
Way back it was widely believed that professional photographers, especially "fine art" masters, would be insulted if someone asked what equipment was used to create a beautiful image, as if the equipment were just as important as the photographer. The two standard responses:
1) For a lens, I used the bottom of a Coke bottle.
2) All my images are created with a camera and lens.
I am a hopeless gear head, sometimes suspecting that taking pictures is just an excuse for buying equipment. BUT, sometimes getting a new toy means I'll take some pictures, just to try it out, and maybe by accident I'll capture something worth sharing. As I read once, one cure for equipment mania is to see some really bad images taken with really top-notch gear.