Then we push you to a Raynox 250, but that is for another day LOL

D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
"Then we push you to a Raynox 250, but that is for another day LOL"

This quote is from our very own Moab Man in a different thread. I have seen others talk about this but really how good is it really?

DCR-250 Super Macro conversion lens for D-SLR camera

$75 so just how good can it be?

And while I am asking opinions of accessories. I have been shown the light on using graduated ND filters but the brand my friend uses are over $100 a piece. Are there any out there that don't cost an arm and a leg but still get good results? For use in cutting the bright light of the sky and leaving the landscape alone.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
"Then we push you to a Raynox 250, but that is for another day LOL"

This quote is from our very own Moab Man in a different thread. I have seen others talk about this but really how good is it really?

DCR-250 Super Macro conversion lens for D-SLR camera

$75 so just how good can it be?

And while I am asking opinions of accessories. I have been shown the light on using graduated ND filters but the brand my friend uses are over $100 a piece. Are there any out there that don't cost an arm and a leg but still get good results? For use in cutting the bright light of the sky and leaving the landscape alone.
Click to expand...

Have you seen [MENTION=9753]Scott Murray[/MENTION]'s macro stuff?
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
So that is with the Raynox 250? Then I will order it. Nice that it can go to different lenses. My wife recently asked for a Macro lens so this will keep her happy. I wonder how it will work on the 18-200?
Click to expand...

Why don't you give her your 40mm macro lens and put the Raynox on that. Or better yet, just buy her a Tokina 100mm macro lens. It's so sharp it cuts right through a Tamron 90mm...So I hear!
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Blacktop said:
Why don't you give her your 40mm macro lens and put the Raynox on that. Or better yet, just buy her a Tokina 100mm macro lens. It's so sharp it cuts right through a Tamron 90mm...So I hear!
Click to expand...

She does not want to be changing lenses. I would have to change them every time she wanted to shoot macro. The Raynox 250 just clips on and off. Would be perfect for her. I am trying to find out how wide/far away you can get with it on. Can you get an entire flower in a shot?
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
I am thinking the 150 might be a better choice for average macro shots
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how it work on a regular zoom lens. I know Scott uses it on the Tam 90mm, and he also said that it would work well on a regular 50mm non macro lens. You may have to confirm the zoom lens option with someone who owns this .
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Blacktop said:
I'm not sure how it work on a regular zoom lens. I know Scott uses it on the Tam 90mm, and he also said that it would work well on a regular 50mm non macro lens. You may have to confirm the zoom lens option with someone who owns this .
Click to expand...

From the Manufacture site: DCR-150 Macro lens obtains the maximum macro magnification power when set at the most telephoto position of zoom lens.

So I would think it would work.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Blacktop said:
I think you should get it. Now you got me thinking that I should get one as well. Thanks.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I just looked at all my lenses. The 18-200 (wife's on her D7000) has a 72mm filter and the raynox 150 or 250 need from 52-67 which would fit my 18-140, 70-300 and my wonderful little 35mm and of course the 40mm Macro.

I guess I will give her the 40 and get the raynox 150 or 250 for me. I keep thinking the 250 might be to limiting for me. to close only. sometimes I want the entire flower in the shot.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
I just looked at all my lenses. The 18-200 (wife's on her D7000) has a 72mm filter and the raynox 150 or 250 need from 52-67 which would fit my 18-140, 70-300 and my wonderful little 35mm and of course the 40mm Macro.

I guess I will give her the 40 and get the raynox 150 or 250 for me. I keep thinking the 250 might be to limiting for me. to close only. sometimes I want the entire flower in the shot.
Click to expand...

Ok, don't laugh, but......When I want an entire flower in my shot, I reach for my trusty 18-55mm VRI lens that came with my D3100. That thing focuses almost as close as a macro lens. Also it's pretty darn sharp.
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
I guess I will give her the 40 and get the raynox 150 or 250 for me. I keep thinking the 250 might be to limiting for me. to close only. sometimes I want the entire flower in the shot.
Click to expand...

Jut do the 250! That way, I can get it from you when you decide to go with the 150! :D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
RocketCowboy said:
Jut do the 250! That way, I can get it from you when you decide to go with the 150! :D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I read a number of reviews and a few of them got deals where both the 150 and the 250 were included. They almost all said they liked the 150 better. 250 was harder to use handheld because of the narrow DOF. I can see that as a problem. Most said they worked better on longer zooms also.

Interesting
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
I have the raynox 250 per advice from Scott! The field in focus is very thin, I posted a almost photo in that thread having used the raynox! As you will see getting it all in focus is tuff! This is using my 105mm micro with the raynox on my D800E! :)

dsc_6470.jpg
 
Last edited:
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
The 150 is on order. Amazon Prime so it will be here in 2 days. I will update with photos as soon as it gets here including how it works on the different lenses. Should be fun. Maybe I can find some bugs.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
You could also get a close-up filter instead of the Raynox 150. The lens has a diopter value of 4.8 which is slightly more than the B+W NL4 I have. The difference is that the B+W are screw-in but the advantage is they come in more sizes.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I'm about to lean towards a 2x TC, Kenko likely, instead of all these filters. Shooting at f/16-32, I doubt the IQ would degrade as much, but that working distance will be seriously nice.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
I'm about to lean towards a 2x TC, Kenko likely, instead of all these filters. Shooting at f/16-32, I doubt the IQ would degrade as much, but that working distance will be seriously nice.
Click to expand...

I'm using a TC2x from time to time for macro and even when I have to use an extension tube to make it fit to the macro, it works great. I already had some serious working distance but with the TC attached, it's even better.
 
Top