[photolady95]

Thanks! Yes, the quality of these Raynox lenses is pretty incredible - especially when one considers how *terribly* the cheap single-element close up lenses perform, and the fact that the Raynox lenses are pretty inexpensive too.

I have some closeup lenses. They just don't seem to be as sharp as I would like them to be. And when I first read about this in that other thread, I couldn't believe the price of it. I figured it must cost hundreds of dollars.....to my pleasant surprise, it's within my price range.

[titrisol]

A glorified close up lens!
I have a set of close-up-lenses (Vivitar Brand) and I think the flexibility of having +1,+2,+3 and combinations is better.
BUT it does not beat a real macro lens

[photolady95]

Does this mean you are for or agaisnt this adapter?

And I know neither options beats a real macro lens. I just can't buy that now.

[xjjohnno]

Go for the DCR 250, on the end of a long tele zoom it will be the next best thing to taking pics with a microscope. The end result is you will have a lot of fun and that is what really counts.

[audiobomber]

Does this mean you are for or agaisnt this adapter?

And I know neither options beats a real macro lens. I just can't buy that now.

The Raynoxes are not simple close-up lenses. They are achromatic "2-group/3-element lenses , with coated optical glass elements". I've seen a few sets of photos where people compared closeup lenses to Raynox and there's a big difference in distortion, sharpness and CA.

For ultimate quality a dedicated macro wins, but it's not the gap some would have you beliieve. Part of what people are seeing when comparing a Raynox and macro lens is the reduced DOF caused by the longer focal lengths the Raynoxes need. Also the fact that most Raynox users are not mounting them on premium quality lenses.

The DCR-150 has some notable advantages of its own, that's why I bought one despite having a DCR-250 and a D FA 100mm. On your 70-300mm lens, you will get about 1.6:1. That is significantly better than a dedicated macro lens can achieve. At 1:1 and above, the DCR-150 allows you to focus from about double the working distance of a 100mm macro lens. There are also a couple of practical advantages that make a Raynox essential to me; tiny size compared to a macro lens, and no lens changes; just pop-on, pop-off. At the price, everyone should have at least one Raynox.

I would disagree with the suggestion to get a 250 instead of a 150. Yes, the extreme magnification provided by the DCR-250 is a lot of fun, but for you the DCR-150 is the better choice because of the longer working distance, sufficient magnification, less vignetting and because DOF is easier to control.

[newarts]

Part of what people are seeing when comparing a Raynox and macro lens is the reduced DOF caused by the longer focal lengths the Raynoxes need. Also the fact that most Raynox users are not mounting them on premium quality lenses.

So far as close-up lenses are concerned, DOF depends only on magnification on the sensor and f-number - a close-up lens like a Raynox only changes DOF in-so-far as it changes magnification, m.

DOF/WOF=C*N*(1+1/m) where WOF is width_of_field, C depends on the camera & display.

*Of course* a perfect close-up lens on a poor camera lens will yield a poor macro. So will a poor macro lens all by itself.

Sheesh,

A Dave in Ames

PS If you've got a good long zoom, you'll be hard put to do better than a Raynox 150 for 50USD. Just look at Marc's dandy Dandelion photo! I doubt he's posted a Trojan Horse! Ok, maybe the edges won't be perfect - compose around it. Sheesh!

[Marc Sabatella]

A glorified close up lens!

Well, yes, but glorified in a very significant way - it's a multiple element achromatic design. Image quality is so much better than the single element lenses, it's hard to even come up with a good analogy. It's certainly *WAY* bigger than the difference between the worst zoom you own, shot wide open, and the the best prime you own, shot at f/8. Maybe the difference between a Holga and the FA31?

I have a set of close-up-lenses (Vivitar Brand) and I think the flexibility of having +1,+2,+3 and combinations is better.

The advantage of the set would be the ability to have different focus distances instead of being forced into one focus distance, and I agree, that is a limitation of the Raynox. But you pay an *incredibly* high price in IQ for that. Of course, if you use a single prime, the set of single-element lenses also has the advantage of providing multiple magnifications, but multiple primes or a zoom with the Raynox does that, too, so that's not really an advantage to the closeup set.

BUT it does not beat a real macro lens

Well, sure, the single elements sets don't even come close in any respect whatsoever. But the Raynox does come surprisingly close in IQ, if not flexibility.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-11-2009 at 07:51 AM.

Some great advice on here already... I will just add my two cents... If you are wanting to use it with the 70-300 I too would recommend the Raynox 150. The 250 is too strong for the 300mm IMO, and the 150 is much more usable.

But as Marc, and others have said. The IQ of the raynox on a decent prime lens is pretty darn close to a good dedicated macro lens, and equal or better than that of an average one, IMHO...

Here is a crop of one I took the other day with the Travelin' Nifty Fifty (Pentax A 50 1.7) + the raynox 250.

[newarts]

Some great advice on here already... I will just add my two cents... If you are wanting to use it with the 70-300 I too would recommend the Raynox 150. The 250 is too strong for the 300mm IMO, and the 150 is much more usable.

But as Marc, and others have said. The IQ of the raynox on a decent prime lens is pretty darn close to a good dedicated macro lens, and equal or better than that of an average one, IMHO...

Here is a crop of one I took the other day with the Travelin' Nifty Fifty (Pentax A 50 1.7) + the raynox 250.

Yikes! That's impressive.

[photolady95]

And WOW on this bee too, Gus. Very impressive!! Just wondering, how close you were with that travelin fifty?
If at some other time, I wanted to buy and use the 250 it would work better on say a 50mm? Cause I also have a 50mm lens. Though not an A it's not an M either.


I'm going to go for the DCR-150 for now.


My older sister popped in just now to tell me supper is done. When she saw your photos, Marc and yours Gus, she said.......WOW, those a great!! Can you do that? And I said, well of course, as soon as I get that gadget they used.

[audiobomber]

So far as close-up lenses are concerned, DOF depends only on magnification on the sensor and f-number - a close-up lens like a Raynox only changes DOF in-so-far as it changes magnification, m.

DOF/WOF=C*N*(1+1/m) where WOF is width_of_field, C depends on the camera & display.
!

Thanks for the clarification. How about I modify my statement to say this then:
Part of what people are seeing when comparing a Raynox and macro lens is the reduced DOF caused by the extreme magnification the Raynoxes present on a long lens.

*Of course* a perfect close-up lens on a poor camera lens will yield a poor macro. So will a poor macro lens all by itself.

Sheesh,
!

I was talking about real macro lenses, not Tamron or Sigma faux macro lenses. Which true (1:1) macro lens do you consider poor?

I don't have any DCR-150 photos on line, but here's a DCR-250 on a Tamron 70-300 (2.7:1 macro). IIRC this was at f32 and I couldn't even fit the cicada's head in the DOF.

That is freakin sick.... I love it and take back everything I said...

[photolady95]

Thanks for the comments but money is tight right now so I'll get the 150 first, and maybe next month I can get the 250. Never hurts to have more equipment.

[audiobomber]

So far as close-up lenses are concerned, DOF depends only on magnification on the sensor and f-number - a close-up lens like a Raynox only changes DOF in-so-far as it changes magnification, m.

DOF/WOF=C*N*(1+1/m) where WOF is width_of_field, C depends on the camera & display. Sheesh!

This online DOF calculator says you're wrong. Online Depth of Field Calculator

I entered the data for 1:1 magnification using a D FA 100mm, then for a Raynox DCR-150 on a 210mm zoom.

D FA 100mm macro: Subject distance 30.3 cm

Depth of field
Near limit 30 cm
Far limit 30.6 cm
Total 0.56 cm
In front of subject 0.28 cm (50%)
Behind subject 0.28 cm (50%)

DCR-150: Subject distance 21 cm

Depth of field
Near limit 21 cm
Far limit 21 cm
Total 0 cm
In front of subject 0 cm (NaN%)
Behind subject 0 cm (NaN%)

So Sheesh right back at ya.

[wll]

after seeing these post, bought a DCR-150 from B&H.

I like all the options of lens use and the small footprint make it something I can always have in my bag .....very cool.


wll