Canon 100mm + Raynox 250

CanopicJar said:

This isn't exactly what you are looking for, but Hello MuMu on Flickr uses the Raynox 250 on a fujifilm X-Pro2 with a 55-200 zoom lens and the results are surprising.

Hello MuMu

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

Has anyone used the canon 100 (or any of the competitor lenses probably is fine) with the Raynox 250? Samples would be awesome.

Why? I get 2:1 magnification with tubes, but it's a beast to handle in the dirt with the bugs. Just the 100 alone is tough. Also, the added length of tubes adds more problems with light. I've managed that well, but it would be a bonus.

More questions with this combo - what magnification can I expect? Working distance at highest magnification? Focusing - how far out can you focus? Assuming infinity won't happen. How much does IQ suffer in comparison to just tubes.

Looking to fill more of the frame with the small robber flies. About 2:1 is perfect more would be nice if I can control it down to less than 2:1.

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

Well...then what am I looking for? ...aaaand, for under $100? And why isn't this what Im looking for? I did a little research and it looks like the magnification would be right. I know that people are fanatical about raynox close up lenses. I've personally seen some pretty incredible results. And, I guess bonus - I have the 55 250

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

CanopicJar said:

This isn't exactly what you are looking for, but Hello MuMu on Flickr uses the Raynox 250 on a fujifilm X-Pro2 with a 55-200 zoom lens and the results are surprising.

Hello MuMu

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

c h u n k said:

Well...then what am I looking for? ...aaaand, for under $100? And why isn't this what Im looking for? I did a little research and it looks like the magnification would be right. I know that people are fanatical about raynox close up lenses. I've personally seen some pretty incredible results. And, I guess bonus - I have the 55 250

Click to expand...

I have used the Raynox 150 and 250 on a 55-250 STM on a 70D. It isn't my preferred setup as I mentioned in another reply but it worked ok.

The 70D + 55-250 + Raynox 250 gave a minimum scene width of around 13mm at a working distance of around 95mm and a maximum scene width of around 50mm at a working distance of around 115mm.

gardenersassistant said:

CanopicJar said:

This isn't exactly what you are looking for, but Hello MuMu on Flickr uses the Raynox 250 on a fujifilm X-Pro2 with a 55-200 zoom lens and the results are surprising.

Hello MuMu

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

Okay...but I'm using it with a 100mm macro. You can't compare to the 55 to 250, I don't think.

Click to expand...

The 55 to 250 at 100mm with a full set of tubes gets me somewhere around 1:2 said:

c h u n k said:

Well...then what am I looking for? ...aaaand, for under $100? And why isn't this what Im looking for? I did a little research and it looks like the magnification would be right. I know that people are fanatical about raynox close up lenses. I've personally seen some pretty incredible results. And, I guess bonus - I have the 55 250

Click to expand...

I have used the Raynox 150 and 250 on a 55-250 STM on a 70D. It isn't my preferred setup as I mentioned in another reply but it worked ok.

The 70D + 55-250 + Raynox 250 gave a minimum scene width of around 13mm at a working distance of around 95mm and a maximum scene width of around 50mm at a working distance of around 115mm.

c h u n k said:

c h u n k said:

CanopicJar, post: 58040961, member: 1455450"]
This isn't exactly what you are looking for, but Hello MuMu on Flickr uses the Raynox 250 on a fujifilm X-Pro2 with a 55-200 zoom lens and the results are surprising.

Hello MuMu

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

c h u n k said:

Okay...but I'm using it with a 100mm macro. You can't compare to the 55 to 250, I don't think.

Click to expand...

I'm not comparing them. I gave figures for a Sigma 105 macro with Raynox 250 in my first post, which was a direct response to some of the questions in your initial post.

In this post I was responding to your apparent suggestion in the emboldened section below that you would consider using a Raynox lens on a 55-250, which is why I gave figures for that combination.

The 55 to 250 at 100mm with a full set of tubes gets me somewhere around 1:2 said:

c h u n k said:

Well...then what am I looking for? ...aaaand, for under $100? And why isn't this what Im looking for? I did a little research and it looks like the magnification would be right. I know that people are fanatical about raynox close up lenses. I've personally seen some pretty incredible results. And, I guess bonus - I have the 55 250

Click to expand...

I have used the Raynox 150 and 250 on a 55-250 STM on a 70D. It isn't my preferred setup as I mentioned in another reply but it worked ok.

The 70D + 55-250 + Raynox 250 gave a minimum scene width of around 13mm at a working distance of around 95mm and a maximum scene width of around 50mm at a working distance of around 115mm.

gardenersassistant said:

gardenersassistant said:

CanopicJar, post: 58041125, member: 674842"]
This isn't exactly what you are looking for, but Hello MuMu on Flickr uses the Raynox 250 on a fujifilm X-Pro2 with a 55-200 zoom lens and the results are surprising.

Hello MuMu

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

I seen now, gardener assistant. Was working, reading and responding all at same time. completely misunderstood a couple things, and also thought this was all from one person responding, but there's been 2. Sorry.

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

Thanks for the help. You did answer some of my questions. That is close to 2:1 magnification. Will be more with tubes. Working distance...well, Ill have to have google translate to standard measurement for us silly Americans.

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

However, Im used to very, very close working distance sometimes. The 50mm on tubes was extremely close. It helps that I can focus out and see subject in the frame and then focus in on it while I get closer.

In the meantime, I did a search on Flickr, which I've found to be very helpful sometimes when looking for samle images. There are some really good shots with this combo. Gonna take the leap...Wondering for snap on - it says 52mm to, I think 67mm....fine for most lenses. Wondering what to do with my 50mm 1.8 as it's just 49mm filter size. I do have some step up rings....Also, are there threads on it to add filters, etc? Just wondering because I have a Yongnuo ring flash.

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

... How much does IQ suffer in comparison to just tubes. ...

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

c h u n k said:

I seen now, gardener assistant. Was working, reading and responding all at same time. completely misunderstood a couple things, and also thought this was all from one person responding, but there's been 2. Sorry.

Click to expand...

No problem.

gardenersassistant said:

Thanks for the help. You did answer some of my questions. That is close to 2:1 magnification. Will be more with tubes. Working distance...well, Ill have to have google translate to standard measurement for us silly Americans.

Click to expand...

Translation (the numbers were approximate to start with and have now been rounded as well!)

I have measured the 250 on my Sigma 105 Macro on my 70D. This combination had a minimum scene width of under half an inch at a working distance of about 2.5 inches and a maximum scene width of just over an inch at a working distance of about 5 inches.

The working distances were small compared to extension tubes. For example, with 68mm extension tubes I measured a minimum scene width of around half an inch at a working distance of around 4 inches and a maximum scene width of around 1.5 inches at a working distance of around 7 inches.

For larger magnifications, two other APS-C combinations I measured were 70D+105+Raynox 250 and Raynox 150 stacked, and 70D+105+Raynox MSN-202.

The Raynox 150 and 250 stacked had a minimum scene width of around a third of an inch at a working distance of around one and a quarter inches and a maximum scene width of around three quarters of an inch at a working distance of around 2.5 inches.

The Raynox MSN-202 had a minimum scene width of around a fifth of an inch at a working distance of around an inch and a maximum scene width of around a third of an inch at a working distance of around 1.5 inches.

gardenersassistant said:

However, Im used to very, very close working distance sometimes. The 50mm on tubes was extremely close. It helps that I can focus out and see subject in the frame and then focus in on it while I get closer.

In the meantime, I did a search on Flickr, which I've found to be very helpful sometimes when looking for samle images. There are some really good shots with this combo. Gonna take the leap...Wondering for snap on - it says 52mm to, I think 67mm....fine for most lenses. Wondering what to do with my 50mm 1.8 as it's just 49mm filter size. I do have some step up rings....Also, are there threads on it to add filters, etc? Just wondering because I have a Yongnuo ring flash.

Click to expand...

The Raynox 250 (like the Raynox 150) has 43mm thread and a 49mm filter thread.

Because it has a filter thread you can stack them using a 49 to 43 step ring. For example, I sometimes use a Raynox 150 and 250 stacked. Mark Berkery sometimes uses two 250s stacked.

I use step rings rather than the spring-loaded adapter because they have little plastic nibs on them that I have twice broken off rendering the adapter useless. I am not alone in having broken an adapter but other people use the adapters with no problems.

Unlike tubes, close-up lenses work best with longer focal length lenses. You may find a Raynox 250 doesn't work too well with a 50mm non-macro lens.

Raynox lenses have a somewhat small diameter and this causes vignetting with some lenses, getting worse as focal length decreases.

There are close-up lenses with larger diameters, although not quite as powerful as the Raynox 250 (about the power of the Raynox 150 I think). The larger diameter close-up lenses I have tested were not as sharp as Raynox lenses of around the same power and were more subject to chromatic aberration. There may of course have been sample variation - many people are very happy with larger diameter close-up lens. I myself use a larger diameter, lower power close-up lens.

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

Also have one of the Meike auto reversing mount/systems, but was less than impressed by results. Still don't really understand why they looked so bad.

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

c h u n k said:

Also have one of the Meike auto reversing mount/systems, but was less than impressed by results. Still don't really understand why they looked so bad.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have one of those too. Like you, I wasn't impressed. One issue was the way it cut the working distance down by 20mm, which on top of the already short (e.g. 40mm) minimum working distance made the minimum working distance really short.

But I could have lived with that. The killer was what I think was (not sure if this is the right term) lens flare - presumably light from the flash reflecting off of the deep lip of the front fitting. (I know, "move the light source further back so there isn't a direct path on to the lip" - tried that. Couldn't get it to work.) There would be a sort of diffuse "mist"/"haze" over some or (I don't recall which) all of the image.

I tried putting black velvet or some such around the lip, but it didn't cure the problem. It was a pity, because apart from that it worked rather well with my 18-55 kit lens: same range of magnification as MPE-65 but much lighter, much easier/quicker to change magnification (good for subject acquisition) and autofocus too.

Click to expand...

_sem_ said:

gardenersassistant said:

c h u n k said:

Also have one of the Meike auto reversing mount/systems, but was less than impressed by results. Still don't really understand why they looked so bad.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have one of those too. Like you, I wasn't impressed. One issue was the way it cut the working distance down by 20mm, which on top of the already short (e.g. 40mm) minimum working distance made the minimum working distance really short.

But I could have lived with that. The killer was what I think was (not sure if this is the right term) lens flare - presumably light from the flash reflecting off of the deep lip of the front fitting. (I know, "move the light source further back so there isn't a direct path on to the lip" - tried that. Couldn't get it to work.) There would be a sort of diffuse "mist"/"haze" over some or (I don't recall which) all of the image.

I tried putting black velvet or some such around the lip, but it didn't cure the problem. It was a pity, because apart from that it worked rather well with my 18-55 kit lens: same range of magnification as MPE-65 but much lighter, much easier/quicker to change magnification (good for subject acquisition) and autofocus too.

Click to expand...

Veiling flare is indeed a common problem with reversed lenses. But I managed to get rid of it quite efficiently by "baffling" the reversal adapter using a black screen with a smaller opening; by using a "lens hood" (drilled rear lens cap); and by adjusting the flash diffuser angle so that intense side-light couldn't enter the lens (may be an issue with protruding concave diffusers). A bright background, also outside the image frame, seems to be a no-no. Cheapo extension tubes and adapters with shiny inner surfaces are a known issue, because the image cone tends to be large and is likely to hit the inner walls.

Another thing was that the AI-s 20/3.5 and AF 50/1.8 primes were notably sharper than the AF-S 18-55 and 18-200VR kit zooms I've tried (the zooms seem to be acceptable only at 18mm, for high magnifications).

Some additional Kenko extension seems to improve the image, maybe because of the baffled inner tube or because of the additional extension (because the lens is used closer to the MFD - only some primes mounted in reverse can be mounted so that the focus points are actually on the sensor and at the flange distance, which is where the lens is designed to work properly, without additional extension).

Though, I don't think reversing is particularly practical for lower magnification, which are reachable with an 1:1 macro lens plus extension (or achromat) with a useful working distance.

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

My 70D died and is off for repair at the moment but I may give this another go when I get it back, although I don't have a suitable focal length prime to try it with - my only prime is a 105mm macro. I see two Canon 50mm 1.8 lenses at around the same price - Canon EF 50 mm 1.8 STM Lens and Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens. Do you happen to know if one or other of these would be preferable for reversing?

Click to expand...

_sem_ said:

gardenersassistant said:

My 70D died and is off for repair at the moment but I may give this another go when I get it back, although I don't have a suitable focal length prime to try it with - my only prime is a 105mm macro. I see two Canon 50mm 1.8 lenses at around the same price - Canon EF 50 mm 1.8 STM Lens and Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens. Do you happen to know if one or other of these would be preferable for reversing?

Click to expand...

Sorry, no idea...

I think wider angles are more useful, because this mostly makes sense for high magnifications; you get over 2x with the lens alone, and around 5x with a set of extension tubes. With a 50mm one can get there too, but bellows would be required. Bellows are fine in studio, because the variable extension allows convenient adjustment of magnification, but outdoors sth more compact is better for chasing bugs and carrying around. I'm not aware of any decent variable extension tube widely available these days.

Generally it is recommendable that the lens has a short MFD and preferably has good resolution up close (resolution is relevant because only a small part of the image is being used, being blown up considerably). The Laowa 15mm macro might work well. The Nikkor AI-s 20/3.5 is reputed to do better up close than at inf. But you should probably look for one Canon-compatible using the Meike coupler - working with manual aperture is nothing but convenient Newer lenses likely have better resolution, but no review site seems to measure resolution up close, not even for macro lenses. There also seem to be considerable differences regarding the flare and baffling thing. I recall Nikkor AF 50/1.8 required a baffling effort to produce useful results; some lenses reportedly work fine without baffling, but it may be due to light conditions etc, one should expect trouble if working with bright side-light, a concave diffuser or such.

A small lens is convenient because of light obstruction. If you have a small wideangle, you can get around 3:1 with a very compact setup, just a small diffuser panel for the pop-up flash works reasonably well.

Click to expand...

gardenersassistant said:

_sem_ said:

gardenersassistant said:

c h u n k said:

Also have one of the Meike auto reversing mount/systems, but was less than impressed by results. Still don't really understand why they looked so bad.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have one of those too. Like you, I wasn't impressed. One issue was the way it cut the working distance down by 20mm, which on top of the already short (e.g. 40mm) minimum working distance made the minimum working distance really short.

But I could have lived with that. The killer was what I think was (not sure if this is the right term) lens flare - presumably light from the flash reflecting off of the deep lip of the front fitting. (I know, "move the light source further back so there isn't a direct path on to the lip" - tried that. Couldn't get it to work.) There would be a sort of diffuse "mist"/"haze" over some or (I don't recall which) all of the image.

I tried putting black velvet or some such around the lip, but it didn't cure the problem. It was a pity, because apart from that it worked rather well with my 18-55 kit lens: same range of magnification as MPE-65 but much lighter, much easier/quicker to change magnification (good for subject acquisition) and autofocus too.

Click to expand...

Veiling flare is indeed a common problem with reversed lenses. But I managed to get rid of it quite efficiently by "baffling" the reversal adapter using a black screen with a smaller opening; by using a "lens hood" (drilled rear lens cap); and by adjusting the flash diffuser angle so that intense side-light couldn't enter the lens (may be an issue with protruding concave diffusers). A bright background, also outside the image frame, seems to be a no-no. Cheapo extension tubes and adapters with shiny inner surfaces are a known issue, because the image cone tends to be large and is likely to hit the inner walls.

Another thing was that the AI-s 20/3.5 and AF 50/1.8 primes were notably sharper than the AF-S 18-55 and 18-200VR kit zooms I've tried (the zooms seem to be acceptable only at 18mm, for high magnifications).

Some additional Kenko extension seems to improve the image, maybe because of the baffled inner tube or because of the additional extension (because the lens is used closer to the MFD - only some primes mounted in reverse can be mounted so that the focus points are actually on the sensor and at the flange distance, which is where the lens is designed to work properly, without additional extension).

Though, I don't think reversing is particularly practical for lower magnification, which are reachable with an 1:1 macro lens plus extension (or achromat) with a useful working distance.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That is very helpful.

My 70D died and is off for repair at the moment but I may give this another go when I get it back, although I don't have a suitable focal length prime to try it with - my only prime is a 105mm macro. I see two Canon 50mm 1.8 lenses at around the same price - Canon EF 50 mm 1.8 STM Lens and Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens. Do you happen to know if one or other of these would be preferable for reversing?

Click to expand...

c h u n k said:

Both lenses are the same optically. Same glass. Different motor. The STM is better at focusing when used regularly, and I would no doubt buy the STM because the lens is awesome used regularly too.

Click to expand...

I'm always surprised when I hear a Canon shooter doesn't have a 50. By far said:

gardenersassistant, post: 58049974, member: 1455450"]My 70D died and is off for repair at the moment but I may give this another go when I get it back, although I don't have a suitable focal length prime to try it with - my only prime is a 105mm macro. I see two Canon 50mm 1.8 lenses at around the same price - Canon EF 50 mm 1.8 STM Lens and Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens. Do you happen to know if one or other of these would be preferable for reversing?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...