Raynox 250

Columbusrat wrote:

Quick question: I shoot hand-held, with a 55-250 lens, Raynox 150 and built-in flash. I know different equipment and techniques could give better results, but this is what I'm happiest with (the 'communing with nature' bit is more important to me than the final result).

I'm often aiming at tiny bugs of around 2mm long. My hand isn't the steadiest, and AF can be tricky as the 'target' is so tiny (MF occasionally gives better results but is still iffy). If I used a Raynox 250, would focusing be easier as the target is bigger, or would it just amplify my wobbles as well as the bug?

Below (cropped) is what I typically get with a tiny bug (Chlorops) - just about good enough for id purposes, which is pretty much all I can hope for at this size:

I have used that setup (Canon 70D, EF-S 55-250 STM, Raynox 150 and Raynox 250).

2mm is small for that setup with the 150. With the 250 the subject will obviously be larger on the screen and that may help with AF and/or MF. As you suggest though, hand-shake would have a larger impact, although with luck that may affect where the subject is in the frame more than whether you or the camera can place focus right onto it. That is partly a timing issue. How fast can you respond; how fast can the camera respond.

I'm afraid this is not specific enough to be helpful. A couple of additional thoughts though.

When I was using this setup I used the 150 most of the time, as that was most suitable for most of my subjects/compositions, but I switched to the 250 when the subject was smaller in the frame than I wanted. The 250 is more difficult to use because the range of working distance over which it can gain focus is much smaller than with the 150. And of course the subject bobbles around more. I did find it worked ok with the 250 though, probably (I don't have numbers or tbh the recollection) with a higher failure rate.

Talking of failure rates, mine have always been quite high, even with the 150. (I don't have steady hands btw.) I always take lots of shots of a subject if it sticks around long enough. Especially with subjects as small as the size you are considering that was (and still is) the only way I can get a decent shot of them, by getting one (or more if I am lucky) out of 5, 10 or more, especially if it is moving around and/or is on a leaf or grass that is moving in the breeze. Given hand shake, I feel that getting an in focus shot is very much a matter of timing. I found my timing and hence success rate improved with practice - lots of practice.

As to the 55-250 in particular, Canon made three versions of the 55-250 and with the first one I had the 150 autofocused only slowly and unreliably and the 250 not at all. When I got the more recent EF-S STM version of the 55-250 autofocus worked fine with both the 150 and the 250 (that was with live view on the 70D). With my current setups I have been forced to use manual focus (having previously almost always used autofocus), but I have found that I now get at least as high a success rate as with autofocus, even perhaps higher. That is much helped by the fact my current setup does focus peaking. It doesn't always work, but when it does I find it very helpful, including being easier on my eyes than trying to see directly where the focus plane is falling.