[smcPixellie]

Hi started reading this thred a few days ago and find it very interesting and informative, I am now waiting for the delivery of a Raynox 250

[wowtip]

Just as with any other lens, it depends on how you want to make the tradeoff betwene working distance and magnification. The 250 gives greater magnification by forcing a closer working distance. The 150 forces a greater working distance, resulting in less magnification. I find the 150 paired with a 135mm lens gives about 1:1 magnification and a working distance of a little over six inches (uh, 15cm?), which is enough magnification for me, and I appreciate the working distance more than having to focus at only half that distance. A zoom lens is often a more practical choice than a prime, because while working distance is more or less fixed, you can change magnification by changing focal length. But if I were to pick one prime to use with a Raynox, and one Raynox to use with it, it would be the 135mm plus Ranoyx 150.

Hey Marc, do you have (much) more DOF to work with when using the 150? Sometimes with the 250 on a long lens you find it hard getting the focal plane right even at f16 with plenty of light...

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't hav a 250 to comapre to, but the standard answer is, DOF is related to magnification. So if I use the 150 on a longer lens to get the same magnification as the 250 on a shorter lens, both should have the same magnification and the same DOF. But if you use both the 150 and the 250 on the same focal length lens, you get less magnification and correspondingly more DOF. That's how I've always understood it, anyhow - with more magnification comes shallow DOF, regardless of *how* you achieve it (eg, with a Raynox, with extension tubes, with a reversed lens, or with a true macro lens).

[audiobomber]

That's how I've always understood it, anyhow - with more magnification comes shallow DOF, regardless of *how* you achieve it (eg, with a Raynox, with extension tubes, with a reversed lens, or with a true macro lens).

That's not been my experience Marc. My tests show the Raynox 250 at 1:1 macro has about 50% of the depth of the D FA 100mm macro. I believe Newarts has some math to show this.

As far as DOF with Raynox 150 vs 250, I've never checked and unfortunately I don't have time now. I won't be surprised if there's a difference in favour of the 150.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 10-10-2009 at 08:57 PM.

[photolady95]

I took my 150 out with my Sears Macro today. I'll post photos on Tuesday. I had a really hard time focusing using the different macro settings. 1:5 was hardest.

[wowtip]

Marc, Dan, thanks for the explanations. I had the impression that the 250 for some (optical) reason creates a very narrow DOF, much more so than a "regular" macro at the same magnification and FL. I have too limited experience using anything but the DA35 in ways of macro, so I can't really say... except that a 250 + 135mm has brutally short DOF.

[Marc Sabatella]

That's not been my experience Marc. My tests show the Raynox 250 at 1:1 macro has about 50% of the depth of the D FA 100mm macro. I believe Newarts has some math to show this.

I tried to word what I said in way to not suggest otherwise, but I probably failed. Yes, there may be things about each basic method (closeup lens versus extension tube versus true macro lens) that causes DOF achieved by one method to differ from DOF achieved by a *different* method. I'm still pretty unclear on how/why this might the case, an still wonder to what extent what we're actually seeing is a difference in *how* OOF the OOF part of an image look (just as is the case when comparing different focallengths for the same magnification).

But anyhow, my claim was meant to be narrower - *for a given method* (closeup lens, say), anything you did you increase magnification would decrease DOF. And that this is just as true of extension tubes and macro lenses as it is of closeup lenses.

It's certainly possible that whatever optical qirk that causes the DOF with a closeup lens to appear smaller than that using a macro lens might make the 250 + short focal length to have different DOF than the 150 + long focal length that provides equivalent magnification. But I wouldn't be surprised if the *apparent* advantage is to the 250, just as it is when shooting a 50mm macro versus a 200mm, because of the factor I mentioned of how OOF the OOF areas are. Would be interesting to see an actual comparison.

[wasser]

Carpenter bee on a passion flower.

Awesome man.

[adwb]

Hi in a previous thread it was suggested I look at the use of a Raynox lens to use for macro insect photography as I am finding the cost of a "true" macro lens prohibitive.
Given that I want to be able to photo insects with out having to get to close to and block the light which do you guys think would be the way to go.?
I can use a tripod but I don't walk round with one all the time so mostly I would be shooting hand held.
I have the following tele lenses and look forward to your comments.
thanks Alistair
Pentax DA18-55 with 52mm thread.
Pentax smc A 35-70 "macro" with 49mm thread this "macro" lens is not a macro at all in fact the 18-55 will produce larger closeups.
Pentax smc A 80-200 with 49mm thread
Sigma auto focus 28-300 with a 72mm thread. this with a Sigma close up lens produces nice crisp images but not truly close up.

[audiobomber]

I have the following tele lenses and look forward to your comments.
thanks Alistair
Pentax DA18-55 with 52mm thread.
Pentax smc A 35-70 "macro" with 49mm thread this "macro" lens is not a macro at all in fact the 18-55 will produce larger closeups.
Pentax smc A 80-200 with 49mm thread
Sigma auto focus 28-300 with a 72mm thread. this with a Sigma close up lens produces nice crisp images but not truly close up.

The best combination you could make IMO would be a Raynox DCR-150 mounted on the 80-200mm zoom. I believe it's a 52mm thread size, not 49 as you typed, and will readily accomodate the Raynox clip-on adapter. You'll get a nice range of macro, at a highly useable working distance (approximately 1:1 at 200mm with 8" subject distance). That combo will be handholdable, but you'll need some extra lighting at times, depending on the day and the aperture selected.

The DCR-150 will also give your 18-55 a little boost, and may even be useable on the long end of the 28-300 with a 72-67mm adapter for 1.4:1 macro.

[adwb]

thanks for the reply, unfortunately the 80-200 pentax is defiantly a 49mm thread, so I can't use the raynox you propose or is there an adapter?
Alistair
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showproduct.php?product=101&cat=42

[newarts]

The Raynox DCR 150 will attach to a pentax' 49mm filter thread. I tried it. It is tight but fits.

However, it is easy to use a 49-52 (whatever)mm step up ring if you don't like the tight fit. Some permanently mount the 39mm threaded Raynox in an approriate step-down adapter and don't use the Raynox' clip-on feature.

The Raynox 150 will give good results with your 80-200; the working distance will be about 8.3", a little more than a 100mm macro lens at 1:1. A 50mm macro lens at 1:1 has a working distance about half that.

You'll find the Raynox easier to use than extension tubes. It'll not be as good at the edges, so if you want the whole field to be sharp you might be better off with extension tubes. But for most circumstances it doesn't matter. Marco photo depth of field is SO small (fractions of a millimeter) the edges of any 3D subject are out-of-focus anyway.

All-in-all the Raynox DCR 150 used with a zoom telephoto lens is a cost-effective macro solution that combines high image quality with great convenience and magnification range. The only drawbacks are edge quality (which usualy doesn't matter) and short working distance at modest magnifications (8.3").

Dave

[audiobomber]

Some permanently mount the 39mm threaded Raynox in an approriate step-down adapter and don't use the Raynox' clip-on feature.

True, but the Raynox diopters are 43mm, not 39mm. http://raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr150/indexdcr150eg.htm.

The Raynox 150 will give good results with your 80-200; the working distance will be about 8.3", a little more than a 100mm macro lens at 1:1. A 50mm macro lens at 1:1 has a working distance about half that.
Dave

AFAIK the true macro lens specs show working distance from the camera sensor to the subject. The Raynox specs show working distance from the diopter lens to the subject. At 1:1 on my long zooms, the Raynox 150 allows a real working distance (i.e. from the lens to the subject) easily double what I get with the D FA 100mm macro.

[wasser]

thanks for the reply, unfortunately the 80-200 pentax is defiantly a 49mm thread, so I can't use the raynox you propose or is there an adapter?
Alistair
Pentax Lens Review Database - 80-200mm F4.7-5.6

It's got some attitude about its filter size eh?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I use a 49-43mm stepdown ring to attach to my 49mm lenses. Using the step down ring is also much more compact and secure than the included adapter.