Conclusion...

Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I have been busy taking macro shots tonight with both my 50mm + Raynox DCR250 and my 90mm Macro + Raynox DCR250 and I think my 50 is a lot sharper and clearer than my dedicated macro. Sure I cannot get more than 1:1 with my non macro but the bugs are big tonight and from the camera screen they look quite clear and sharp zoomed in over 100%. I am not saying that my 90 is crap but I have been impressed with the 50 tonight. Photos will be uploaded in a weeks time when I get home. For now you will have to settle with ones from my phone posted to my Random thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Not sure if you can really see from that extreme crop.

ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1386693690.049897.jpg




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Krs_2007 said:
wow, and thats with the 50 and raynox, can't wait to see it on nikonites.
Click to expand...

Yep sure is as I said I am very surprised and pleased. As it means I have two very good lenses for macro. And the 50 is much better for larger insects like the stick insects and mantis that are around tonight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
So curious, I know focal length isn't much between the two, but what is the difference in distance between you and the subject using both lenses. Basically are you a lot closer with the 50 or just a little.
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Krs_2007 said:
So curious, I know focal length isn't much between the two, but what is the difference in distance between you and the subject using both lenses. Basically are you a lot closer with the 50 or just a little.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the 90mm and 50mm or 50mm with and with out Raynox?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Now that I think about it more it could be that extra dof that gives me the impression of it being sharper. I just took some more with the 90 and they seem just as sharp... Hmmm I don't know lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
LOL


Yea, distance between the lens and subject is what I was referring too. Looks like its fairly simliar. But yes, I was referring to with the raynox, my bad.

Thanks Scott and sorry if I made it worse for you between the ears.
 
Last edited:
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Krs_2007 said:
LOL


Yea, distance between the lens and subject is what I was referring too. Looks like its fairly simliar. But yes, I was referring to with the raynox, my bad.

Thanks Scott and sorry if I made it worse for you between the ears.
Click to expand...

Its all good, filled in some time on my 12hr shift ;)
 
D

dramtastic

Senior Member
Thanks Scott, that is very interesting. There aren't many macro opportunities where I am, but when I'm on a wildlife trip OS this info may come in handy. Any reason why this set up would not work on my 50mm 1.8?
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
dramtastic said:
Thanks Scott, that is very interesting. There aren't many macro opportunities where I am, but when I'm on a wildlife trip OS this info may come in handy. Any reason why this set up would not work on my 50mm 1.8?
Click to expand...
No no reason, oh and I bet there are a lot of macro opportunities where you are as I have friends close by and they take amazing shots of all sorts of critters. You just need to look really close ;)

http://www.brisbaneinsects.com/pchew_brisbane/
 
Top