Seems like a weird statement. Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
Bought the Raynox 250 macro adapter to use with my 18-135 lens this week, as an alternative to carrying around my macro lens.
First impressions: it's lots of fun, and not too hard to use. It also seems to let in more light than a macro lens, so you don't have to push the ISO as high
Okay, so let me start by saying that I could be wrong here - I'd need to do a side-by-side comparison to be sure. However:Seems like a weird statement. Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
Bought the Raynox 250 macro adapter to use with my 18-135 lens this week, as an alternative to carrying around my macro lens.
First impressions: it's lots of fun, and not too hard to use. It also seems to let in more light than a macro lens, so you don't have to push the ISO as high
There will be some difference in light, but not so big as you suggested. It's clear case for tripod, same setting and same magnification comparison photos!Okay, so let me start by saying that I could be wrong here - I'd need to do a side-by-side comparison to be sure. However:Seems like a weird statement. Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
Bought the Raynox 250 macro adapter to use with my 18-135 lens this week, as an alternative to carrying around my macro lens.
First impressions: it's lots of fun, and not too hard to use. It also seems to let in more light than a macro lens, so you don't have to push the ISO as high
This image was taken at f/16, 1/100s, ISO320. When I use my macro lens, I typically set the SS at around 1/80s (it's a 60mm lens), and raise the ISO to around 800 (which is about as high as I usually like to go). With those settings dialed in, I usually can't get much past f/8 before the image is unusably dark. So with all that in mind, the Raynox certainly seems brighter - presumably due to whatever difference there is between magnifying a non-macro image and focussing down to 1:1.
Like I said, maybe I'm mistaken, but this seems to be the case based on my usage today.
--
http://instagram.com/thoughtful_joe
Macro lens are only f stop equivalent at the smallest magnification, they are a bit of a con actually regarding f stop 100mm f2.8 at 1:1 is not f2.8.Seems like a weird statement. Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
Bought the Raynox 250 macro adapter to use with my 18-135 lens this week, as an alternative to carrying around my macro lens.
First impressions: it's lots of fun, and not too hard to use. It also seems to let in more light than a macro lens, so you don't have to push the ISO as high
Yes, I believe that, but I doubt that combo 18-135 with Raynox is significantly better in light transmision at same magnification in comparison with macro lens.Macro lens are only f stop equivalent at the smallest magnification, they are a bit of a con actually regarding f stop 100mm f2.8 at 1:1 is not f2.8.Seems like a weird statement. Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
Bought the Raynox 250 macro adapter to use with my 18-135 lens this week, as an alternative to carrying around my macro lens.
First impressions: it's lots of fun, and not too hard to use. It also seems to let in more light than a macro lens, so you don't have to push the ISO as high
The Raynox doesn't reduce the effective aperture as much as a normal macro lens, but it's not really an advantage because you also get the shallower DOF that comes with a wider aperture. If you set both to the same DOF you will also get the same amount of light.
It's pretty easy, yes. Just remove the front and rear caps, screw the adapter lens into the holder, and then clip it onto your camera lens. If you did the assembly in advance, it would take about ten seconds to get it out of your bag and attach it to your camera. (NB I don't think you can fit the caps once it's been assembled, but it does come with a little plastic case which you could store it in while it's in you bag.)
I have both macro tubes and macro adapter...and honestly I don't like it for non-tripod use. I do family photography, landscape and close-up photos on our trips, so often screwing and unscrewing even of only adapter is annoying to me.
Oh I see it's a two-piece thing kind of like a Lensbaby.
I think you're right that the 18-135 has plenty of magnification for flowers, and some insects like butterflies, bees etc. I actually already have a macro lens for serious close-ups, but it's quite heavy and that puts me off carrying it around "just in case" (though I'll certainly take it out if I'm specifically looking to do some macro photography). The light weight of this adapter means I can always have it on me for spur-of-the-moment shots, which I think makes it worth adding to the kit.
