# Raynox DCR-250 or MSN-505 and my macro



## Stormchase (Jun 22, 2010)

Im pretty sure my next purchase is going to be the DCR-250. Its a nice cheap addition that has steller reviews. I have the tamron 90mm macro and just wondering if this is a good combination. I have heard mixed things on the canon 100mm with CA issues but nothing on the tamron. Also I know it will be a little more of a learning curve but i was looking at the MSN-505. I like the mag on it and am willing to take the time learning it in a staged setting. If Overread is out there I respect your view on this topic.
Thanks in advance for everyones input!


----------



## dak1b (Jun 22, 2010)

I would go with the canon 100mm if you have the extra cash.


----------



## reznap (Jun 22, 2010)

dak1b said:


> I would go with the canon 100mm if you have the extra cash.



That wasn't an option, lol..

I've heard great stuff about the DCR-250.. Don't know anout the other Raynox 'close-up' adapter.

Consider extension tubes and teleconverters as well.. plus you could use them with your other lenses - the teleconverters helping for things other than macro.

But I'm not a macro guy.  Interested in this, so I'll follow this thread.


----------



## Stormchase (Jun 22, 2010)

Thats not really whay im asking tho. Im happy with my Tamron. Just wondering the compatibility with my lens and the Raynox and if the 505 would be too much (vingnetting, CA and such).


----------



## Stormchase (Jun 22, 2010)

reznap said:


> dak1b said:
> 
> 
> > I would go with the canon 100mm if you have the extra cash.
> ...


 
Thanks Rez,
the MSN-505 is:
Magnification: 32-Diopter
Zoom capability: 6x-18x(FZ18/FZ28)
Zoom capability: 12x-18x(FZ38/FZ35)
Lens construction: 3G/4E Optical coated glass elements.
Front filter size: None
Rear threads size: 37mm
Size/Weight: 42 x 24mm/86g.

the DCR-250 is:
Magnification: 8-Diopter
Zoom capability: 4x-18x(FZ18/FZ28)
Zoom capability: 8x-18x(FZ38/FZ35)
Lens construction: 2G/3E Optical coated glass elements
Front filter size: 49mm
Rear threads size: 43mm
Size/Weight: DCR-250 53x18mm/60g.


I have thought about tubes and TC's. I will probly have a TC in the bag before long mostly for my 300mm zoom. and usefull with macro as well. but really for 50 bucks that 250 really has my eye. Half the price then the tubes.


----------



## Overread (Jun 22, 2010)

tubes give you more magnification on shorter lenses whilst diopters (like the DCR 250) are the opposite and give more magnification on longer lenses. For the 90mm I think you really are somewhere inthe middleish between the two - ie both can work quite well. 

Sadly I don't know hte math for diopters so I can't tell you how much more you will get. I will say that the DCR250 or the msn 505 are great optics and well worth getting to try and use. Both are however quite small, on a 1.6 crop camera body I've had no vignetting with my 250 and the msn505 should be fine as well so you should have no worries there. The 250 is the cheaper and its the one I went for, the 505 is a more powerfull diopter and will give you more magnifiaction, its more expensive but still worth considering.

Also a note, a 1.4teleconverter is something that I have almost bolted to my macro lenses (barring the 65mm) the little bit of extra magnification it gives, along with no loss of functionality or working distance makes it a joy to use. Certainly consider one when you can afford it (not sure what fits the tamron 90mm though - you might have to get a prograde Kenko; canon certainly won't fit and sigma might not either.


----------



## Stormchase (Jun 22, 2010)

Overread said:


> tubes give you more magnification on shorter lenses whilst diopters (like the DCR 250) are the opposite and give more magnification on longer lenses. For the 90mm I think you really are somewhere inthe middleish between the two - ie both can work quite well.
> 
> Sadly I don't know hte math for diopters so I can't tell you how much more you will get. I will say that the DCR250 or the msn 505 are great optics and well worth getting to try and use. Both are however quite small, on a 1.6 crop camera body I've had no vignetting with my 250 and the msn505 should be fine as well so you should have no worries there. The 250 is the cheaper and its the one I went for, the 505 is a more powerfull diopter and will give you more magnifiaction, its more expensive but still worth considering.
> 
> Also a note, a 1.4teleconverter is something that I have almost bolted to my macro lenses (barring the 65mm) the little bit of extra magnification it gives, along with no loss of functionality or working distance makes it a joy to use. Certainly consider one when you can afford it (not sure what fits the tamron 90mm though - you might have to get a prograde Kenko; canon certainly won't fit and sigma might not either.


 
 Thank you for the prompt responce. It looks like I will be in the clear going either way, (250 or 505), and quality should not suffer. Thats very good to hear! I would rather spend for quality then save money and get frustrations in return. For the price for either is not a big deal for me. Both are pretty cheap concidering. I was looking at the 65mm but figure it might be too big of a step at the moment and i feel that I have a bit to learn before a major purches like that. Also seeing some of the compairson with the 65mm and other lenses with the DCR-250 attached I have been amazed. Still nothing compairs to the MP-E. One day! Thanks again for the responce. You have a 6th sence lol.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

The MPE is certainly a fantastic all in one lens, but don't let it fool you. A raynox diopter (a +12 one from a set they no longer produce sadly) and a prime lens setup were able to beat the MPE at 5:1. So the diopters are certainly up to the task of producing highquality results.
I do also agree that getting some experience with cheaper highmagnification work is a god move before shelling out on something like the MPE - some people love the results, but just find that the work is too hard/taxing for their style and approach. 

Also, one important point to consider is that of diffraction. Often as not as you start increasing the magnification of a setup you have to use wider and wider apertures to keep the same image quality (effectivly the apertures are often stopping down as a result of the magnification increase so f13 on the aperture blades and in the camera settings is no longer f13 - this occurs in macro lenses by design (nikon users get this actual aperture report, which is why they see f5.6 when wide open at 1:1 whilst canon just report blade position and thus can shoot a f2.8 as the camera reads it - the apertures in both cases though are the same).


----------

