MACT Loc: Connecticut

I get conflicting information. On the one hand a couple of the best-known macro sites highly recommend them, on the other hand multiple sites vehemently warn against adding any additional lenses.
Any forum members have experience with Raynox, and good or bad outcomes?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I've used one on my macro lens to get close to 2:1. I don't use mine regularly but they are a useful tool.

tinusbum Loc: east texas

i have one but never had good results with it. I use a 150mm macro with a full set of tubes every day. i prefer that to the raynox, because i can shoot from 6 to 12" with it.and up to 2:1. i do not think you can get good results with a raynox without stacking every subject. i stack a lot, but not every time.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I should add: since I use the twin flash unit from Nikon I no longer use the Raynox. My flash affixes to the front of the lens where the Raynox would attach.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Before I bought my Optika 10x add on I researched 10x lenses ....Raynox is most popular because it cost more than alternatives... and you get what you pay for ... what is that? Oh, the ability to be able to brag that you paid more... humph results counts.

Loanrangerfinder would be better off with Opteka screw on.... He said "I no longer use the Raynox. My flash affixes to the front of the lens where the Raynox would attach." personally, aesthetically the Raynox offends me... the Optika screw on looks more "professional."

After comparison of specs I went with a $20 screw on made by Opteka vs $75 Raynox grip on. The Optika lens has more elements for correction (4) than the Raynox (3).

Lots of disagreement with my decision in forums .... so check out actual Optika photos at:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3054849

also check out:
http://opteka.com/10x.aspx

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Just so ya know, you can screw the raynox on by using step down rings, and this is how I attach it to my macro lens. The reason for the cost is the quality of the optics, it's as sharp as any lens you choose to use. I used it when first venturing into macro photography and found it gives excellent results, But, it also requires a closer working distance and the closer to the subject you get, the shallower the DOF. This is what lead me to stacking in fact. It's a wonderful tool if lots of practice applied. If the OP understands how to use a speed light and diffuser and doesn't mind the cost, I say go for it..P.S. I used the 250, I would recommend the 150 for the OP.

Raynox 250 attached to macro lens and full set of tubes Blade of grass with fine mist showing refraction of flowers

(Download)

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Please excuse my tardiness, as I just found this thread.
I occasionally use a Raynox M-150 on my Nikkor 105G macro lens to acquire 2:1 mag. One advantage is maintaining the same MWD as 1:1, but quite a loss of light, requiring increased aperture or increased speedlight illumination. The optics of Raynox diopter lenses are excellent, and I believe superior to most other add-on lenses.
Read more here:
FAQ: Extension Tubes vs Bellows vs Tele-Extenders vs Add-on "Close-Up" Diopter Lenses
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26496-1.html