Raynox macro lenses

Northstander

Northstander

Messages
345
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
"Oh no" I hear you say, not another thread about the Raynox macro lenses!!

Well, yes...but only to say I think it's great that so many people on here are trying it out and finding that it is a very useful little lens.

I've had my DCR250 for about 5 years now and at £45 (at the time) it's easily one of the best value bits of kit I've bought. I first used it on my Fuji S6500fd and now I use it on my D7000 in conjuction with a nifty fifty.

Keep having fun with those Raynox's folks, and lets see those photo's! Maybe I'll start a Raynox thread is there isn't one already.

PS. Is it actually a lens? Or an attachment? A widget? Thingymejig? :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Am going to have to invest in one of these on Monday
 
Northstander said:
"Oh no" I hear you say, not another thread about the Raynox macro lenses!!

Well, yes...but only to say I think it's great that so many people on here are trying it out and finding that it is a very useful little lens.

I've had my DCR250 for about 5 years now and at £45 (at the time) it's easily one of the best value bits of kit I've bought. I first used it on my Fuji S6500fd and now I use it on my D7000 in conjuction with a nifty fifty.

Keep having fun with those Raynox's folks, and lets see those photo's! Maybe I'll start a Raynox thread is there isn't one already.

PS. Is it actually a lens? Or an attachment? A widget? Thingymejig? :LOL:
Click to expand...

Here's a few thousand I prepared earlier, on Flickr :D http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/

The correct term for these attachments is 'supplementary close-up lens' - they're basically like reading glasses for your camera. Often called close-up filters because they mount on the filter threads, but they don't actually filter anything.

As these things go, the Raynox DCR-150 and 250 are particularly good quality because they're fully coated triplets (three lenses together) rather than just a singlet meniscus lens.
 
I sent back my 35mm f1.8 as it was a pain to get the focus just right, I am now thinking I should buy the 50mm and a Raynox for a spot of this macro, I guess it works better with a 50mm rather than a 35mm?
 
Last edited:
Ivan S said:
I sent back my 35mm f1.8 as it was a pian to get the focus just right, I am now thinking I should buy the 50mm and a Raynox for a spot of this macro, I guess it works better with a 50mm rather than a 35mm?
Click to expand...

Raynox works better with longer lenses. 50mm is about minimum, 100-plus best.
 
HoppyUK said:
Raynox works better with longer lenses. 50mm is about minimum, 100-plus best.
Click to expand...

At the minute I only have the kit lens 18-55mm VR, I would like a longer lens, like the tamron 70-300mm but was looking to get a prime first for it's large aperture, can't afford more than one lens, arggh, decisions decisions, maybe I could stretch to getting back the 35mm that I liked, as long as it's a good one this time and look at getting the cheap 55-200mm VR, would it work OK with the cheap nikon 55-200mm VR? I like the pictures I have seen with the 55-200mm on flickr.

If so I could possibly get both pretty soon and then get the Raynox to have a play with macro.
 
Item has been posted :) can't wait to get it as I saw some damsel flies today which would've been ideal ( if I can get it to work on my 70-300 VR )
 
Over the weekend I ordered a 70-300mm to use as a lighter walkabout alternative to my 300mm f4. First thing I did after that was order a Raynox 250 to put on it :)
 
I had a Raynox I used with my D90 and I loved it, some really good macro shots for a cheap attachment.
 
I bought a raynox about a week ago from a member on here and is a good bit of kit, I don't have a dedicated macro lens, only have a 35mm,50mm or a 70-300 (with macro setting), which out of the 3 would give best results or be better to use?
 
To be honest, it's my own fault as I chose to test it on both a 70-300 and 35mm f1.8 on a windy evening ( about 6pm ) with no tripod. So I need more light and some still conditions....as I was bumping the iso massively to try and get the shutter speed up.

Will have a look on the laptop but I'm pretty sure they'll all OOF.

Finding the depth of field minute - in and out of focus in a matter of centimetres.
 
I'd like to see it with the 35mm as I was going to get the 35mm again and would try using it with it, maybe just try something in the house on a table, even a flower head picked from the garden.
 
with a 35mm f1.8, taken at f4.5, ISO 800 :bonk: The flower head is about the size of a thumb nail in total


another try by damianmkv, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Mmarques said:
I bought a raynox about a week ago from a member on here and is a good bit of kit, I don't have a dedicated macro lens, only have a 35mm,50mm or a 70-300 (with macro setting), which out of the 3 would give best results or be better to use?
Click to expand...

Hi Marco, it will work great with both the 50mm and the 70-300mm in macro (or not), i used it with the 70-300 in macro, but i only used it on static objects as it was winter when i used it, as you will know by now the dof is so small at 300mm it will probably be best to start with the 50mm until you have got the hang of it, manual focus and try to focus by moving the camera itself in and out instead of using the focus on the actual lens or a mix of both, good luck. :)
 
Thanks for the shot with the 35m(y), that looks good enough for me, I think I will go for it with the 35mm for now.
 
you could get a step down adapter off ebay, say from 55mm to 43mm (most of my lenses are 55mm thread), so then you get the raynox exactly centered, if its off to one side it dont work too well xD

the 150 raynox has a 49mm front thread, and 43mm rear (bit cloesest to camera)
 
Bassit said:
Hi Marco, it will work great with both the 50mm and the 70-300mm in macro (or not), i used it with the 70-300 in macro, but i only used it on static objects as it was winter when i used it, as you will know by now the dof is so small at 300mm it will probably be best to start with the 50mm until you have got the hang of it, manual focus and try to focus by moving the camera itself in and out instead of using the focus on the actual lens or a mix of both, good luck. :)
Click to expand...

Hi John, thanks for the advice ive tried using them with insects and like you said trying to get used to the manual focusing moving the whole camera :)

Here are my first macro pics with the raynox











 
You've done a damn sight better than I have. Can you share your settings please ?
 
damianmkv said:
You've done a damn sight better than I have. Can you share your settings please ?
Click to expand...

Hi there, thanks :)
I used my d3100, 70-300 obviously with the raynox attached :p. pretty much all of them were f.8 , 1/1500th, no flash just using natural sun light.

Just practice setting camera on macro, you can use auto focus but also practice with manual focus and move the camera away or towards the subject until you're focused. Hope this helps.
 
Thanks Marco - we have the same camera and lens so there's hope for me yet :)
 
So how do these work exactly ? ie they just fit on the front of any lens ? do they need any sort of attachment ? i had a macro lens a few years ago, but never really got into it, but I've seen some fantastic sharp photos taken with these Raynox, and for the price, i'm thinking i may have another go, i can always sell on if i get bored with it :)

On another note, i was always under the impression the flies were killed first, and then the shot was taken, lol.
 
They come with a pinch grip adapter, so the lens screws into the adapter than then it "clips" on the front on your lens ( upto 67mm )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top