Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone have experience with the Raynox 150/250?

Go to last post
J

jakeythesnake

Member
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I have a 500D and would like to get into some macro photography. I have the kit 18-55mm lens and am about to purchase the 55-250mm (the first one, not the update).

And yes, I am on a budget. So I was wondering if anyone had either of these and/or could comment on which would be most useful on the setup I have listed. I believe the 250 has a higher magnification factor (unsure of the specialist terminology to use with regards to macro photography) and a shallower DOF than the 150.

Thanks,

Jake
 
Both work quite well but, the 250 is more difficult to focus than the 150 because the in-focus range is so small. Note that with the use of these or any other add-on lenses or extension tubes you will lose infinity focus. For example, the in-focus range may be from say 4" to 5" from the front of the lens. Anything closer or further will be out of focus.

I would suggest considering a used manual focus macro lens for more flexibility.
--
John

 
wildwilly said:
Both work quite well but, the 250 is more difficult to focus than the 150 because the in-focus range is so small. Note that with the use of these or any other add-on lenses or extension tubes you will lose infinity focus. For example, the in-focus range may be from say 4" to 5" from the front of the lens. Anything closer or further will be out of focus.

I would suggest considering a used manual focus macro lens for more flexibility.
--
John

Click to expand...
Mmm, it would be nice not to have to image stack. I shall have a look in a bit but I'm not sure I can spare the extra money.

Will the 250 fit straight onto the end of an EF-S lens?
 
They both come with spring-loaded adapters that clip onto the front of lenses whether EF-S or not. The determining factor is the front diameter of the lens. I forget just what that limit is but you can visit the Raynox website and get the specs.

--
John

 
wildwilly said:
They both come with spring-loaded adapters that clip onto the front of lenses whether EF-S or not. The determining factor is the front diameter of the lens. I forget just what that limit is but you can visit the Raynox website and get the specs.

--
John

Click to expand...
52-67mm apparently. Excellent.

Seeing as you mentioned them, do you know of any good but cheap macro lenses? Of course good and cheap are usually mutually exclusive, which is why I was just looking for a simple add-on.
 
You can look for a Tamron 90, Sigma 100 (105?) or 150, Canon 100 non L on the used market. Try KEH, Adorama, B&H, Ebay, Craigs List, and Fred Miranda. For me, I would rate Ebay and Craigs list behind Adorama.

If you decide to stick with a Raynox, I would recommend the 150 rather than the 250. Then if you find you want more, you can then get the 250.

--
John

 
I'm going to be using the Raynox on the end of a 55-250mm lens.

If I understand correctly, the longer the focal length I use it at the greater the magnification - could I not just use the 250 but at a shorter focal length to achieve the same as the 150? And obviously I would get a greater DOF at a shorter focal length.

How close do you have to be to the subject with each of them - and does that vary with focal length also?
 
jakeythesnake said:
I'm going to be using the Raynox on the end of a 55-250mm lens.

If I understand correctly, the longer the focal length I use it at the greater the magnification - could I not just use the 250 but at a shorter focal length to achieve the same as the 150? And obviously I would get a greater DOF at a shorter focal length.

How close do you have to be to the subject with each of them - and does that vary with focal length also?
Click to expand...
Anyone? Bumpity bump.
 
jakeythesnake said:
I'm going to be using the Raynox on the end of a 55-250mm lens.

If I understand correctly, the longer the focal length I use it at the greater the magnification - could I not just use the 250 but at a shorter focal length to achieve the same as the 150?
Click to expand...
Yes if you use the 250 around 135mm focal length, it will give similar magnification as the 150 at full 250mm zoom.
jakeythesnake said:
And obviously I would get a greater DOF at a shorter focal length.
Click to expand...
I know it sounds counter intuitive but for macros if the subject is the same magnification then a shorter focal length gives the same depth of field as a longer one with the same aperture, see this link for a better explanation http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm under the title "Macro depth of field"
jakeythesnake said:
How close do you have to be to the subject with each of them - and does that vary with focal length also?
Click to expand...
The 250 is about 4.5 to 5 inches from the front element, the 150 is about 8 to 9 inches from the front element. This doesn't change no matter what focal length.

--
Walt

http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall
 






I used the 250 on the 55-250mm IS, and it worked well. Then I got a used 60mm Canon which is way better.....for about $300.

But for $50, the Raynox gives you great magnification and decent optics. For a strict budget, or infrequent use where you realize it's limitations, it is pretty good.Here are 2 images my wife took, one with the kit + DCR-250 and another with the 55-250 IS + DCR-250.

Be sure to click on the images to enlarge!

Fred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top