# Raynox-250 - Which lens suits the best !!



## yogi_k (Apr 13, 2011)

Hello people,

I am planning to buy Raynox-250 for close up photography. Havnt seen too many reviews of it on the internet. Need some feedback from you guys regarding it.
I have 3 lenses: Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 18-55mm and Sigma 70-300mm.
Which lens would work best with it and what points to keep in mind while using Raynox-250..

Thanks..


----------



## gsgary (Apr 13, 2011)

Don't do it, they are rubbish


----------



## Drake (Apr 13, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Don't do it, they are rubbish


I don't agree. I have used the Raynox 250 for a year or so and it resulted in some good shots. The quality is a lot better than the all the cheap +something filtrs.

Stick to the Sigma 70-300mm, I've actually used the same lens. 50mm is too short, the magnification isn't big and you'll most likely get the filter holder in your frame. You should start at about 70mm. As far as I remember, you get 1:1 magnification at about 100mm when the lens is set to the minimal focusing distance. The fun really starts at 130-150mm. At 200mm you get about 2:1 magnification, and at 300mm with the sigma set to macro it's an outrageous 4:1 or so. Of course on 300mm it's very hard to get a good shot, even if you get the focus spot on, the sigma isn't exactly a performer at the telephoto end.

Be sure to set your sigma to manual focusing. The AF will struggle with the macro lens on. Focus by moving your camera closer of further from the subject. It will be hard to get a sharp photo at first, but don't give up. After a few hundreds of shots you'll be getting quite a nice percentage of sharp photos. It's just the way you work with a macro converter, you have to check your LCD, magnify the preview and see if you got this one sharp. Start using the lens at the shorter focal lengths, then move up. You'll probably stick to 70-150mm. Beyond that it seems fun at first, but it's usually just too much, not to mention difficult.

I really loved using the Raynox 250, it's a lot of fun. If you can't afford a proper macro lens, there's no cheaper way to shoot macro.

Here are a couple photos of mine, shot with a Canon 400D, Sigma 70-300mm and Raynox 250.
















These are even older, shot with a Panasonic FZ7 P&S and the Raynox 250.


----------



## yogi_k (Apr 13, 2011)

Wow .. lovely pics Drake .. I was also looking forward to using the Sigma lens .. or the 50m 1.8 with some filters.. these images have really spurred me up .. 
I know it would take time to focus as the depth of field would be very shallow .. But am looking forward to it ..

Thanks for the info ...

Cheers..


----------



## Drake (Apr 13, 2011)

With apertures of f11-f13 you should be fine.

As for the 50 1.8 - it can be used for macro, but in this case extension tubes are a better solution.


----------



## Overread (Apr 13, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Don't do it, they are rubbish


 
Careful - the ultra cheap close up lens kits/filter kits are rubbish - the Raynox however are far from rubbishy. A previous Raynox diopter model (similar to the DCR 250, but a +12 rather than the +8 that the 250 is) was able to beat the Canon MPE 65mm macro in tests - so that is pretty much as good as it gets:
My thoughts on MP-E 65mm | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


As for using the DCR250 it will give you more magnification on longer focal length lenses, so yes your 70-300mm would be the better lens to use with this adaptor to get the most magnification possible. If you wanted to go even cheaper (though probably losing a bit more image quality) you could also reverse mount your 50mm onto your 70-300mm using a reversing ring (you just get one of ebay with the two thread sizes that you need and screw the setup together).
That gives you the rough math of:
Focal length of lens attached to camera body divided by focal length of reversed lens = magnification :1
where 1:1 is true macro or the same magnification that regular prime macro lenses are capable of. 

eg 70-300mm at 300mm with the 50mm gives:
300/50 = 6:1 - that is 6 times life size (that is really tricky!)


EDIT:


Drake said:


> With apertures of f11-f13 you should be fine.


 
careful with apertures. Most setups that allow you to increase the magnification of a setup also result in the effective aperture being reduced. This means that whilst the lens might be reporting f11 to you the actual aperture might be f22 or even smaller. This means that diffraction will kick in a lot faster and that means you'll get softer shots if you keep the aperture the same as you increase the magnification.
This often means that you'll be setting fairly wide apertures like f5.6 when at 5:1 if you want to preserve sharpness of the setup. Of course how soft you can go depends on your own standards and also the output medium you work with. I do recommend spending half and hour or so testing out the effect of differing apertures on sharpness - a simple tripod setup facing a coin or similar detailed subject at around 45degrees (don't shoot flat on because small focus errors might give the wrong result - shooting at an angle ensures that you'll always have the plane of focus somewhere in the shot). It sounds dull, but its well worth it to get an idea of how badly diffraction is affecting your shots and what apertures you can happily get away with.


----------

