kimphoto

Does anyone using raynox yet??? How is it?? I would like to know before buying it. Thanks

Kim

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Several UHH macro-photographers use either the Raynox M-150 or the Raynox M-250. Read about the differences here:
FAQ: Extension Tubes vs Bellows vs Tele-Extenders vs Add-on "Close-Up" lenses
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26496-1.html

I invite you to view the UHH True Macro-Photography Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html .
This is the forum to ask questions or discuss macro equipment and macro techniques.

Before posting macro images to the Macro Forum, please read Introduction to True Macro-Photography Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-22447-1.html . Each & every thread must contain at least one true macro-photograph.
To place Macro Forum on your UHH home page, you can subscribe here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/section_list.jsp .

On my Nikkor 105G macro lens, I use an M-150 (4.8-diopters = 1.5x). The Raynox 250 is 8-diopters = 2.5x. Raynox lenses are coated, multiple elements in groups, radically reducing CA & peripheral distortion, earning a good reputation as add-on diopter lenses. Raynox 250 recommended for lenses shorter than 85-mm focal lengths; Raynox 150 recommended for lenses 85-mm or longer focal lengths.

Raynox M-150 'add-on' lens

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

On which camera, and with which focal length lens do you want to use a Raynox diopter add-on lens?

Greg Brandt Loc: illinois

I have the Raynox 250. I have used it on my D5100 with the 70-300 vrII. It is not an easy lens to master (I haven't yet anyhow). Very very narrow depth of field. In all honesty, I have only messed around with it for a total of 2-3 hours. I have seen some pretty impressive images with it however. Also, I haven't used a true Macro lens so I don't know how difficult those are compared to the Raynox. Maybe it's the same with those as well.

kimphoto

I have canon t3i and saw this one and just wondering how it use (just a thought) thanks for your reply

kpassaur Loc: Valrico FL

I have not used a Raynox but I am into macro photography and I have seen exceptional photos taken with one. I was going to purchase one and a Canon one came up cheap on Craig's list. So I got the Canon which is also double element like the Raynox. I find it exceptional. I have read in numerous reviews that all close up lenses are junk. Perhaps they are if you are taking photos of test charts but in the real world they have a purpose and they serve a function and they do it well. If you really want to know how good they are I would suggest that you go to flickr and do a search for Raynox and view photos taken with one. You will find many that are better than those taken with a true macro lens - it is the operator.

At the end of the day it is really just learning how to shoot real macro shots and once you do you can use any kind of hardware. I have used reversed lenses, extension tubes, stacked lenses, macro lenses, bellows, enlarger lenses, virtually everything you have heard of I have tried.

I would get some decent shots and a lot that weren’t, then one day it sort of clicked and all of my shots seemed to get better. I was asked to put on a little macro class so I thought I should go through some of the hardware choices. When writing about the hardware choices it made no sense to not include a photo taken with that setup. So I dug out the old stuff I tried along the way and took some shots. I never spent more than 5 minutes or ten shots to get a sample that was good. I mean real good with some of the options costing cost next to nothing.

My point is, it is not going to be the equipment it is going to be the operator as I mentioned above.

Anyway, the down side of the close up lens is that it has to be removed in order to take a regular shot. Think of it like this, you are all set to take a photo of a bee and he takes off, two feet away there is a Butterfly and you have a choice get within six inches of it (depends on the lens you have on) and fill a frame with half of him or remove the close up filter and get a regular shot not a true macro shot. With a real macro lens you would just focus on him. I am not sure on this one but I think the Raynox clips on and off which would be a big plus. Other ones are like filters that screw on and off and that takes time.

So that is the big negative, you have to remove them to take a regular shot and the image degrades somewhat. Well you will have seen from those flickr photos it may degrade but not much.

On the positive side you have a couple of biggies; you don’t lose any light like most other macro options, and to top it off you still may be able to use autofocus.
The key to deciding on which equipment to get is to first decide on what you want to shoot.

For instance if you want to take photos of stamps you may not want to use a close up filter as the corners will not be as sharp as those with a macro lens. In that case since stamps don't move, for about the same amount of money as the Raynox you could get a cheap set of tubes, a reversing adapter and an enlarger lens. This quality of this option is exceptional, but very difficult to use for live bugs or when first starting out.

You can learn more about macro hardware here
http://www.macroshooting.com/Hardware.htm

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Please use the Quote Reply tab, so we know to whom your comment is directed.

I am more interested as to which focal length lens you will add the Raynox.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

If you have never used a Raynox, why are you answering a question specifically about Raynox? (Rhetorical question, no answer expected)

The UHH True Macro-Photography Forum has at least twenty (20) very experience macro-photographers, and their current macro set-ups can be seen on pages 4, 5, & 6 here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-32754-4.html

We immediately & succinctly answer ALL questions about macro-photography asked here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

kpassaur Loc: Valrico FL

Perhaps you should read it again. I use a Canon one which I believe to be the only other dual element close up lens, it is my understanding that Nikon made them and stopped, I would assume you know this as you have it listed under your equipment. My suggestion was to go to flickr and search for examples. What is acceptable quality to one person is not acceptable to another. No lens tests will come back with a Raynox with exceptional quality in the corners. Who cares unless you are photographing something like stamps? I mean you own one so you don’t care about corners.

I have read on numerous websites how all close up filters drastically diminish the quality of an image. I believed that until I saw an image that was taken with a 1.4 tele-converter, a 100mm macro and a Raynox. That is when I stopped believing others as all they have to offer is opinions. Let’s see some proof. Where do you find that, well you can at flickr when you search for equipment? If some equipment is bad all shots should be bad.

As for the link to other hardware, there are more solutions for macro shots than using macro lenses close up filters, etc and that page goes over the basic hardware choices. I thought I was being helpful but I guess not. On that site you will also find a page that explains in detail why people use the macro set-ups that can be found on pages 4, 5, & 6 here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-32754-4.html Where is it on the UHH site – why, in detail, do people use these macro set-ups? I would bet the person asking the question about Raynox has no idea as to why. For that matter why even bring it up the question was about Raynox, not macro set-ups. Oh were you trying to be helpful? I’ll put it like this, Nikonian72, I tried to be helpful and after your reply which is typical of people on the UHH. I won’t be doing it again.