The Raynox Macro club

mikeSF · 09-07-2010, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by wowtip

...
really great shot. Would you share with us your lighting setup?

thanks.
this was late afternoon and the sun was going down behind the fly to my right. I used a Pentax AF-540 with a $40 O-Flash and then aimed a tiny halogen flashlight on the wings from behind to coax out that irridescent effect.
Since the fly was trapped, i had a bit of time to get the shot positioned as I wanted, then i was able to push the fly back through with my thumb and he flew away.

Mike.P® · 09-17-2010, 02:37 PM

Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and Raynox 250

Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5 and Raynox 250

Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and Raynox 250

photolady95 · 09-18-2010, 09:54 PM

This thread sure has grown a lot since Dan first started it. I don't have my Raynox lens anymore. Sold her to pcarfan through our Marketplace. Now the reason I did that was because with my Sigma lens it was too heavy for me to use. I'm thinking on getting the 250 to go with my kit lens I bought not long ago. It's the 18-55mm DA L ll. And I've been using it with a set of closeup lenses. I figure as light as that lens is, I might have better luck with the 250. What you all think?

Frogfish · 09-19-2010, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by adwb

Hi have had both and used both on the 18-55
the answer depends on what you want to achieve. The 250 requires a tripod at all times and has a very very small Depth of field an gives amazing close ups of insects and in my opinion is to much for flowers unless you are a botanist.
excellent for insects BUT I found you rarely get the sort of huge insect eye photos you see posted.
The on 150 on the other hand can be used hand held in some circumstances is brilliant for flowers and will show insects up well but not in huge detail but better than you have probably seen before.
on both I used the clip on attachment on the 55dia lens and on a 49mm dia 50mm prime I use a step down.
as long as the lens dia is smaller than the Raynox then you you don't get the dark corner [ vignette] effect.
I sold the 250 as I rarely used it and it required a specific plan of action to use it and thats not the way I work.
buy a 150 first and use it. after all you you can crop and enlarge if your images are sharp and you get a better D.O.F. to work with.
Alistair

I understand what you are saying but that isn't so. Many macro shooters pretty much ONLY shoot hand held as tripods / monopods are too much of a hindrance when trying to stalk nervous insects.

Usually when I use a tripod I use it with a macro rail so I can stack but 95% of my macro shots are hand held.

I took this yesterday (Tamron 90 + 250) - this is a tiny tiny weed (just 2mm across). I was actually just trying out a new flash so sorry about the composition / background.

You can see more of my macro shots, both with and without the 250 here : Frogfish's Photos | SmugMug sorry not a lot on there yet as I have just opened the account and am busy uploading those I deem worthy of public exposure

Last edited by Frogfish; 09-19-2010 at 12:11 PM.

Frogfish · 09-19-2010, 12:09 PM

Love those bees Vaughn & that trapped fly Mike - made me laugh !

photolady95 · 09-19-2010, 03:05 PM

Frogfish, looks like I need that 250. I can hand hold using the closeups but there really isn't the magnification I want to see with them. Though I'm also told extension tubes are what I need, that adds weight to the combination and the 250 doesn't.

Great flower shot too.

oceanpriest · 09-22-2010, 11:00 PM

I tried Raynox DCR-250 with Sigma 70-300mm APO DG, it has 1:2 macro capability. Tried at 300mm with minimum focusing distance. Handheld and also with flash.

**rparmar** · 10-12-2010, 12:22 PM

This appears to be the most appropriate place to ask this question. I understand that the minimum magnification I can expect from one of these adapters is calculated as diopters * focal / 1000. Putting a Raynox DCR-250 on a 105mm lens results in 8 * 105/1000 = 0.84x

But what if that lens is already a 1:1 macro? (Namely the Vivitar Series 1.) Does anyone have a formula for calculating the resulting magnification? Any examples of the resulting images with this combo?

newarts · 10-12-2010, 04:18 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rparmar

This appears to be the most appropriate place to ask this question. I understand that the minimum magnification I can expect from one of these adapters is calculated as diopters * focal / 1000. Putting a Raynox DCR-250 on a 105mm lens results in 8 * 105/1000 = 0.84x

But what if that lens is already a 1:1 macro? (Namely the Vivitar Series 1.) Does anyone have a formula for calculating the resulting magnification? Any examples of the resulting images with this combo?

Here's a thin lens theory way to estimate the new magnification, m.

Say the original focal length is f', the close-up lens focal length is f", and the original magnification is m'. The nominal magnification of the lens pair is m"=f'/f".

1) The focal length of the combined lens, f, is:
f=f'f"/(f'+f")
2) The distance from the lens the image plane does not change: it is
f'(1+m')=f(1+m)

After a little algebra we get:
m=m'+m"(1+m')

In your example nominal magnification of the Raynox 250 with the 105 is 0.84 and the magnification before adding the Raynox is 1. the magnification after adding the Raynox is:

m=1+0.84(1+1)=2.68

Hope this helps,
Dave

PS in the equation it doesn't matter which is the magnification without the close-up lens and which is the nominal magnification of the lens pair.

**rparmar** · 10-12-2010, 04:35 PM

Very clear thanks!

newarts · 10-13-2010, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

Very clear thanks!

For initial magnification m' and nominal close-up lens magnification, m" (described above):

(1+m)=(1+m')(1+m")

A much prettier formula that even I can remember! Yay!

Dave

PS it is the same formula given earlier, just rearranged to emphasize symmetry. For years now, each time I wanted to estimate a close-up lens' magnification given a pre-magnification I had to search through old notes or re-derive the formula; those days are over now!

VaughnA · 10-13-2010, 06:10 PM

Still loving the 55-300 / 150 combination. Caught this hungry dude on my wife's irises.

Kcjacoby · 12-07-2010, 07:26 AM

Hey everyone.. another faithful Raynox 250 fan here... However I've used it on my Canon Powershot S5 IS for the past few years... I just ordered up a 100-300 mm lens for my K7, so I'm eager to see what type of results I'm going to be able to get with it. Here's a few of my shots with my canon and the Raynox...

Even a little video with it on...
Remember Stanley? | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

mikeSF · 02-01-2011, 01:24 PM

A couple of Raynox-assisted macros:

Vivitar 90/2.8 +Raynox 150

yeatzee · 02-01-2011, 02:49 PM

I've been entertaining the idea of buying the 250 for extreme (talking just the eyes of jumpers) macros but im still a little un sure. How bad is the image degredation at magnifications greater than 1:1? How does the raynox attach to the lenses? Via the filter ring? So do I have to buy step up/down rings as well?

10-13-2010, 05:41 AM	#221
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	an easy formula to remember... Originally posted by rparmar Very clear thanks! For initial magnification m' and nominal close-up lens magnification, m" (described above): (1+m)=(1+m')(1+m") A much prettier formula that even I can remember! Yay! Dave PS it is the same formula given earlier, just rearranged to emphasize symmetry. For years now, each time I wanted to estimate a close-up lens' magnification given a pre-magnification I had to search through old notes or re-derive the formula; those days are over now! Last edited by newarts; 10-13-2010 at 06:01 AM.

12-07-2010, 07:26 AM	#223
Kcjacoby Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 50	Hey everyone.. another faithful Raynox 250 fan here... However I've used it on my Canon Powershot S5 IS for the past few years... I just ordered up a 100-300 mm lens for my K7, so I'm eager to see what type of results I'm going to be able to get with it. Here's a few of my shots with my canon and the Raynox... Even a little video with it on... Remember Stanley? \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Last edited by Kcjacoby; 12-07-2010 at 08:10 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Raynox 150 not giving me better macro :(	SirJangly	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	09-24-2010 10:56 AM
Question about Raynox options but not as a macro...	brecklundin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-31-2010 12:15 AM
First Raynox Macro Shots	moovinfast	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-29-2008 03:55 PM
New to Macro - Want to try a Raynox but which one?	JRock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	08-17-2008 12:49 AM

09-07-2010, 03:16 PM	#211
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	Originally posted by wowtip ... really great shot. Would you share with us your lighting setup? thanks. this was late afternoon and the sun was going down behind the fly to my right. I used a Pentax AF-540 with a $40 O-Flash and then aimed a tiny halogen flashlight on the wings from behind to coax out that irridescent effect. Since the fly was trapped, i had a bit of time to get the shot positioned as I wanted, then i was able to push the fly back through with my thumb and he flew away.

09-17-2010, 02:37 PM	#212
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and Raynox 250 Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5 and Raynox 250 Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and Raynox 250

09-18-2010, 09:54 PM	#213
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	This thread sure has grown a lot since Dan first started it. I don't have my Raynox lens anymore. Sold her to pcarfan through our Marketplace. Now the reason I did that was because with my Sigma lens it was too heavy for me to use. I'm thinking on getting the 250 to go with my kit lens I bought not long ago. It's the 18-55mm DA L ll. And I've been using it with a set of closeup lenses. I figure as light as that lens is, I might have better luck with the 250. What you all think?

09-19-2010, 11:57 AM	#214
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by adwb Hi have had both and used both on the 18-55 the answer depends on what you want to achieve. The 250 requires a tripod at all times and has a very very small Depth of field an gives amazing close ups of insects and in my opinion is to much for flowers unless you are a botanist. excellent for insects BUT I found you rarely get the sort of huge insect eye photos you see posted. The on 150 on the other hand can be used hand held in some circumstances is brilliant for flowers and will show insects up well but not in huge detail but better than you have probably seen before. on both I used the clip on attachment on the 55dia lens and on a 49mm dia 50mm prime I use a step down. as long as the lens dia is smaller than the Raynox then you you don't get the dark corner [ vignette] effect. I sold the 250 as I rarely used it and it required a specific plan of action to use it and thats not the way I work. buy a 150 first and use it. after all you you can crop and enlarge if your images are sharp and you get a better D.O.F. to work with. Alistair I understand what you are saying but that isn't so. Many macro shooters pretty much ONLY shoot hand held as tripods / monopods are too much of a hindrance when trying to stalk nervous insects. Usually when I use a tripod I use it with a macro rail so I can stack but 95% of my macro shots are hand held. I took this yesterday (Tamron 90 + 250) - this is a tiny tiny weed (just 2mm across). I was actually just trying out a new flash so sorry about the composition / background. You can see more of my macro shots, both with and without the 250 here : Frogfish's Photos \| SmugMug sorry not a lot on there yet as I have just opened the account and am busy uploading those I deem worthy of public exposure Last edited by Frogfish; 09-19-2010 at 12:11 PM.

09-19-2010, 12:09 PM	#215
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Love those bees Vaughn & that trapped fly Mike - made me laugh !

09-19-2010, 03:05 PM	#216
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	Frogfish, looks like I need that 250. I can hand hold using the closeups but there really isn't the magnification I want to see with them. Though I'm also told extension tubes are what I need, that adds weight to the combination and the 250 doesn't. Great flower shot too.

09-22-2010, 11:00 PM	#217
oceanpriest Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Singapore Posts: 50	I tried Raynox DCR-250 with Sigma 70-300mm APO DG, it has 1:2 macro capability. Tried at 300mm with minimum focusing distance. Handheld and also with flash.

10-12-2010, 12:22 PM	#218
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	This appears to be the most appropriate place to ask this question. I understand that the minimum magnification I can expect from one of these adapters is calculated as diopters * focal / 1000. Putting a Raynox DCR-250 on a 105mm lens results in 8 * 105/1000 = 0.84x But what if that lens is already a 1:1 macro? (Namely the Vivitar Series 1.) Does anyone have a formula for calculating the resulting magnification? Any examples of the resulting images with this combo?

10-12-2010, 04:18 PM - 1 Like	#219
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by rparmar This appears to be the most appropriate place to ask this question. I understand that the minimum magnification I can expect from one of these adapters is calculated as diopters * focal / 1000. Putting a Raynox DCR-250 on a 105mm lens results in 8 * 105/1000 = 0.84x But what if that lens is already a 1:1 macro? (Namely the Vivitar Series 1.) Does anyone have a formula for calculating the resulting magnification? Any examples of the resulting images with this combo? Here's a thin lens theory way to estimate the new magnification, m. Say the original focal length is f', the close-up lens focal length is f", and the original magnification is m'. The nominal magnification of the lens pair is m"=f'/f". 1) The focal length of the combined lens, f, is: f=f'f"/(f'+f") 2) The distance from the lens the image plane does not change: it is f'(1+m')=f(1+m) After a little algebra we get: m=m'+m"(1+m') In your example nominal magnification of the Raynox 250 with the 105 is 0.84 and the magnification before adding the Raynox is 1. the magnification after adding the Raynox is: m=1+0.84(1+1)=2.68 Hope this helps, Dave PS in the equation it doesn't matter which is the magnification without the close-up lens and which is the nominal magnification of the lens pair.

10-12-2010, 04:35 PM	#220
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Very clear thanks!

10-13-2010, 06:10 PM	#222
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	Still loving the 55-300 / 150 combination. Caught this hungry dude on my wife's irises.

02-01-2011, 01:24 PM	#224
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	A couple of Raynox-assisted macros: Vivitar 90/2.8 +Raynox 150

02-01-2011, 02:49 PM	#225
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	I've been entertaining the idea of buying the 250 for extreme (talking just the eyes of jumpers) macros but im still a little un sure. How bad is the image degredation at magnifications greater than 1:1? How does the raynox attach to the lenses? Via the filter ring? So do I have to buy step up/down rings as well?