Raynox 250

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:

Thank you Nick That's very helpful, even if it is a case of 'might be better, might be worse, depending on the photo gods'! I'm attracted to the Raynox 250 as it's so much cheaper than new lenses or other equipment. And I do like being able to whip off the Raynox if a butterfly or bird suddenly puts in an appearance - changing lenses in the field would go badly, knowing me.

Sorry, I meant to add - it is the STM lens that I have.

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:

The greater the magnification, the more difficult it is to hold the camera steady.

It is much easier if the camera/lens can be mounted on a tripod, and a focus rail can really make a difference.

Opting for an old, legacy, manual focus macro lens can produce incredible results. Macro shots don't need autofocus and instead are best used by moving the camera back and forth to get best focus.

Here is an example where I used an old Vivitar 90mm f2.8 macro lens with the camera/lens mounted on a focus rail. This leaf is small enough to fit on top of a nickel with nickel still showing. I set the lens to 1:1 and move the camera/lens on the focus rail to obtain focus.

I throw this out as just an example.  I see you have a Canon, and I don't know if this lens can be obtained with a Canon mount or not.  But I know that there are many manual macro lenses that fit a Canon.  I also have it's little brother, the 55mm f2.8 macro.  Both are made by Komine.   Both are incredible lenses for something that is likely 50 or more years old.

The Ultimate Vivitar 90mm F/2.8 Macro Review! – Photography Paws

Thank you, Jim. I know a tripod and focus rail could improve my photos a lot, but they wouldn't work for the way I do my photography - think kitten and butterflies! I could, of course, set up a shot in one position, put some sugar water on a likely-looking flower, then sit and wait... and wait... but I'm much happier just wandering round seeing what I might find, and then hoping I can get a few shots off before it flits off again. It's pretty much the equivalent of meditation for me.

I've ordered the Raynox 250. It'll be interesting to see how I get on with it. Reviews tend to be quite polarised, but at least with experience of the 150 I have an idea of what to expect.

When I have a craving for small insects to photograph, I have a Sigma 150 mm macro lens and teleconverters.

I have a very strong tripod that can help me a lot to hold still.

With the 2x converter I can get a 1:1 photo at near .5 meters.  I can use manual focus assist to look at things very closely that I would never find with my eyes alone.  It gives me a great working distance.  I can add some extension tubs to it and get even more magnification.  It will let me focus from near 3 meters to less than 300 mm.  It does reduce the light reaching the sensor by up to three stops.

Another advantage to using this set up is that the field of view doesn't change as much with small changes in distance.

macrouser wrote:

When I have a craving for small insects to photograph, I have a Sigma 150 mm macro lens and teleconverters.

I have a very strong tripod that can help me a lot to hold still.

With the 2x converter I can get a 1:1 photo at near .5 meters. I can use manual focus assist to look at things very closely that I would never find with my eyes alone. It gives me a great working distance. I can add some extension tubs to it and get even more magnification. It will let me focus from near 3 meters to less than 300 mm. It does reduce the light reaching the sensor by up to three stops.

Another advantage to using this set up is that the field of view doesn't change as much with small changes in distance.

I should, probably, try to experiment with something resembling a light tripod that I could rest my arm or hand on (rather than fix the camera to it). It's a question of whether I can come up with something workable that doesn't get in the way of the 'communing with nature' bit.

I do at one point want to go to a local(ish) camera shop where I can actually look down the lenses of different lens/extension tube/teleconverter combinations. Unfortunately I'm stuck at home with an extremely needy dog with the beginnings of dementia, so that will have to wait until either his brain or his back legs give out completely - it's a toss-up which will happen first...

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:

Another option is software to correct camera motion and for resizing. Attached is an example of a Hibiscus flower starting to open. The ants had placed their aphid herd on this one.

Original hand held closeup

Using Topaz Sharpen AI - Motion Blurry Mode to correct hand shake. Some cropping was done.

Using Topaz Gigapixel AI to resize a tighter crop by 4x

You're right, Jim, I really should try a sharpening tool - I'd always imagined that my less good photos didn't have enough 'raw information' (pun intended;-) ) to be salvageable, but I could be wrong. My son's pretty good with photo editing software - I'll have to send him a selection and see what results he can get. And then aim to master them myself when I have more time and headspace.

I've been pleasantly surprised with my first results with the Raynox - it's damp and grey out, but I found a cooperative spitting spider in the conservatory...

How I get on in the garden, with more mobile subjects and possibly a slight breeze, is another matter, of course. Spitting spiders effectively glue their prey to the ground/windowsill before tucking in, so don't tend to move much - I thought it must be dead at first.

Columbusrat wrote:

Thank you, Jim. I know a tripod and focus rail could improve my photos a lot, but they wouldn't work for the way I do my photography - think kitten and butterflies! I could, of course, set up a shot in one position, put some sugar water on a likely-looking flower, then sit and wait... and wait... but I'm much happier just wandering round seeing what I might find, and then hoping I can get a few shots off before it flits off again. It's pretty much the equivalent of meditation for me.

I've ordered the Raynox 250. It'll be interesting to see how I get on with it. Reviews tend to be quite polarised, but at least with experience of the 150 I have an idea of what to expect.

I find the 250 quite good, albeit with a very shallow DOF and very little range of focus distance; this with the OLY Macro.

I think on your OP shot there are any number of things that could have affected the "sharpness" of the image.

DOF is one but you used F32. That might be a bit into diffraction.

A SS of 1/200 may not have been enough (overall SS not just narrow zone of sharpness) given your hand motion, the bug's or leaf motion, and the magnification of the image. I might think using 1/1000 or greater would be helpful unless on a fixed substrate.

I shoot Focus Stacked on tripod mosses, but also shoot a lot of handheld bees where really I think 1/1000 is very minimal.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

A SS of 1/200 may not have been enough (overall SS not just narrow zone of sharpness) given your hand motion, the bug's or leaf motion, and the magnification of the image. I might think using 1/1000 or greater would be helpful unless on a fixed substrate.

I shoot Focus Stacked on tripod mosses, but also shoot a lot of handheld bees where really I think 1/1000 is very minimal.

Thanks Gary. I'm limited to 200 by the flash though, and I really want to use the pop-up. I do realise that I'm pretty much asking the impossible though, and can't expect great results - they just have to be good enough for me. And I'm setting the bar pretty low!