Raynox 250 versus Macro rings.. advice needed.

[Trev Rich]

I recently bought a set of 4 Macro rings / filters and am really not getting on with them.
Whats the difference between them and a Raynox 250?
Has anyone tried both and can compare?
I am thinking of getting the Raynox but only if its much better than the filters.

thanks

 

[allanm]

What lens are you using them on? I have just ordered the Raynox 250. I also have a Sigma 70-300 APO I was going to use it on that and a Sigma 105 EX. Never used rings though, I thought the Raynox was the better option.
Allan

 

[Canon Bob]

Trev,

The Raynox 250 is a +8 diopter lens and is a 2 group/3 element construction whilst I guess you have the set of 4 single element diopters of various diopter strengths.

I tried to advise a quick word of caution in your original post on the subject but fear I was a little late.

Assuming it is an image quality problem that is disappointing you then I think the Raynox method of construction and quality will be the solution.
I should mention that the quality of the base lens will also have a big effect on the results.....adding diopters will inevitably highlight any shortcomings of the lens.

Bob

 

[benneh]

Trev,

The Raynox 250 is a +8 diopter lens and is a 2 group/3 element construction whilst I guess you have the set of 4 single element diopters of various diopter strengths.

I tried to advise a quick word of caution in your original post on the subject but fear I was a little late.

Assuming it is an image quality problem that is disappointing you then I think the Raynox method of construction and quality will be the solution.
I should mention that the quality of the base lens will also have a big effect on the results.....adding diopters will inevitably highlight any shortcomings of the lens.

Bob

As far as I knew rings/tubes didn't result in any real loss of quality (on account of them being hollow)?.

 

[Canon Bob]

As far as I knew rings/tubes didn't result in any real loss of quality (on account of them being hollow)?.

Benneh,
From a previous thread, I assume that Trev's description "macro rings/filters" is a reference to the cheapish sets of diopters that can be purchased online. These are constructed like filters but have a small magnification built in and screw directly into the filter mount of the lens.
Maybe I've misunderstood here.

Extension tubes, as you say, do not degrade IQ with the exception of any loss due to lower light transmission.

Bob

 

[theory]

Thing with add-on lenses is that all the auto functions still work fine with them and the raynox lenses in particular are far superior to anything I expected... not particularly fast, but sharp and with good mag levels too. Probably more convenient and for that reason it's what I'd prefer but I can't really argue that it's the 'best' option.

I'd suggest looking at the result people have got with the lens you're considering though, flickr and here are good places to start.

 

[Trev Rich]

Benneh,
From a previous thread, I assume that Trev's description "macro rings/filters" is a reference to the cheapish sets of diopters that can be purchased online. These are constructed like filters but have a small magnification built in and screw directly into the filter mount of the lens.
Maybe I've misunderstood here.

Extension tubes, as you say, do not degrade IQ with the exception of any loss due to lower light transmission.

Bob

exactly Bob.. and silly me.. I ordered the ones that you advised me not to... but I saw your post a little late.

I will be using the Raynox on either the 70-300mm DG or the kit lens (18-55).

The filter lenses that I bought are +1, +2, +4 and +10.

 

[benneh]

Benneh,
From a previous thread, I assume that Trev's description "macro rings/filters" is a reference to the cheapish sets of diopters that can be purchased online. These are constructed like filters but have a small magnification built in and screw directly into the filter mount of the lens.
Maybe I've misunderstood here.

Extension tubes, as you say, do not degrade IQ with the exception of any loss due to lower light transmission.

Bob

Ahh, I see .