Raynox anyone ?

[Turn7]

I have a 100mm macro but would like to get closer sometimes.

Are these any good and anyone here use them ?

Also - which one ?

[DibblyDobbler]

Turn7 said:

I have a 100mm macro but would like to get closer sometimes.

Are these any good and anyone here use them ?

Also - which one ?

I use a Raynox 150 with my 100mm - I really rate them, very good results for a cheap bit of kit.

The 150 is enough for me but I don't teand to shoot very small stuff (ie <5mm) so it depends what you want to do with it?

Plenty of examples in my Flickr stream if you are interested

[Turn7]

It was your fly image that got me thinking Mike...

[Simpo Two]

You could also consider close-up lenses (dioptres) that screw into the filter thread, and reversing rings if you can deal with manual everything.

[DibblyDobbler]

Just to be clear - a Raynox is a diopter - it just clips on instead of screws on

I also have a Marumi screw on diopter which works well also but is a bit bigger and heavier.

[Simpo Two]

DibblyDobbler said:

Just to be clear - a Raynox is a diopter - it just clips on instead of screws on

OK; I thought Raynox were a bit more than a single screw in lens.

[An Marcach]

I've a Raynox 250 (again didn't know about them until I say the posts on here some months back) and I'm well happy with it.

The DOF is really really tiny with it and if you're shooting something like an insect on a leak you'll end up taking lots and lots of shots that aren't sharp or in focus (any bit of movement from yourself or the wind blowing the leaf or the bug moving will see that you have plenty like that) but the ones you do get can be amazing.

The fact that the Raynox can be put into its box and into your jacket pocket means that you can have the ability to get mega-close if you want to without having to haul extra lenses with you.

If you buy one you won't regret it.

[Turn7]

How does a Raynox compare with using extension tubes ?

Does the AF still work?

[DibblyDobbler]

Turn7 said:

How does a Raynox compare with using extension tubes ?

Does the AF still work?

Personally I prefer the Raynox as it's easier to use (can be clipped on and off in 2 seconds) - and yes the lens will still autofocus (but not to infinity and most folk manual focus for macro anyway).

[damianmkv]

Some of mine with the 250 and a 70-300 + flash. Manual focus, rock back and forth method

raindrops ( explored - thank you ) by damianmkv, on Flickr

tipping point ( explored #494 15/7/14 ) by damianmkv, on Flickr

can&#x27;t hide it anymore by damianmkv, on Flickr

[Turn7]

Nice work Damien.

What length do you use the 70-300 at ?

[damianmkv]

from memory, around 100-110 mm as any longer and the DoF disappeared

I'm now a m43 shooter ( well...at the moment.. ) so haven't done macro for over a year

[rich888]

Turn7 said:

How does a Raynox compare with using extension tubes ?

Does the AF still work?

I have both the Raynox and the extension tubes but have been nowhere near as successful as DD with photographing insects, I believe DD sings to them Just look at the results posted on the Macro photo thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Strangely enough I actually prefer using the extension tubes. I also picked up a circular LED flash unit which attaches to the front of the lens because when using the extension tubes and the built in flash you end up with severe shadowing. The auto-focus works fine with both though sometimes it's better to manually focus because the depth of field is so narrow. I managed to take some lovely close-up photos of some flowers which I was very pleased with.

EDITED to add that I really need to invest in a 100mm lens which would make composition much easier, currently I'm using a Canon 50mm f1.8.

Question for DD if you don't mind, are you using a 100mm macro lens or the standard one?

Edited by rich888 on Wednesday 28th September 17:06

[An Marcach]

I used the Raynox with a 50mm 1.8 for a while and then bought a Tokina 100mm 2.8 during the summer and the Tokina is a seriously good lens.

It's seriously sharp and well built and is about half the price of the Canon equivalent.

Here's a bit of info on it (by an annoying man who compares to a Nikon here but that's largely irrelevant in this instance) https://youtu.be/XtpC3g0sVDw

[DibblyDobbler]

rich888 said:

I have both the Raynox and the extension tubes but have been nowhere near as successful as DD with photographing insects, I believe DD sings to them Just look at the results posted on the Macro photo thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Strangely enough I actually prefer using the extension tubes. I also picked up a circular LED flash unit which attaches to the front of the lens because when using the extension tubes and the built in flash you end up with severe shadowing. The auto-focus works fine with both though sometimes it's better to manually focus because the depth of field is so narrow. I managed to take some lovely close-up photos of some flowers which I was very pleased with.

EDITED to add that I really need to invest in a 100mm lens which would make composition much easier, currently I'm using a Canon 50mm f1.8.

Question for DD if you don't mind, are you using a 100mm macro lens or the standard one?

Edited by rich888 on Wednesday 28th September 17:06

Cheers Rich - no singing, just a sad bd with plenty of time on his hands

I use a standard Canon 100mm (which is a 100mm macro) - not aware of a non-macro 100mm?

You'd find it a heck of a lot easier to use than a 50mm, lot more working distance.