Raynox DCR-250 or Kenko DG Extension Tubes?

N

Nemesis

Messages
368
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd like to have a go at macro, but having never ventured into it before I don't want to shell out a fortune only to end up with a lens I don't use very much.

I've been reading up on the Raynox DCR-250 and Kenko DG Extension Tubes. They both appear to give similar results, all-be-it by different processes. However, other than the £100 difference in price, what are their main differences?

(I don't know if it's relevant, but I've got the standard new photographers kit of a Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, a Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, and a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II)

Cheers,
Michael
 
You will probably get better quality with the tubes, but bear in mind that either way you are moving the lens a long way from its design operating range. You also get more options with the tubes by using different combinations, though that can be a bit of a fiddle and you can do much the same thing with the zoom on your 55-250.

If you want to shoot flat objects with high edge sharpness and minimal geometric distortion, then both options will probably disappoint - coins, stamps etc. You need a pukka macro for that. However, with most regular macro of 3D subjects, the subject is around the middle and the edges are out of focus anyway. Plus you need a high f/number just to get a bit more depth of field, so the lens will be up around it's optimum aperture and delivering good sharpness.

What this boils down to is that for most macro stuff you can get away with something that is not optically perfect at all times but delivers very well in the way that it generally gets used.

Edit: for the benefit of others, here are thousands of images shot using the Raynox DCR-250 macro adapter. It just clips on the front of the lens. It works with anything over about 50mm and is most versatile/best in the 80-250ish range at higher f/numbers. Bargain £40 from Amazon :thumbs: http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/pool/
 
Last edited:
I have the Raynox 150, which is also maybe worth a look. It offers slightly more depth of field to the 250 but will not get you quite as close. I haven't used tubes so I don't have a direct comparison but even with the 150 getting an in-focus image (or the bit you want in focus) takes a lot of time or extraordinary luck. Obviously the 250, more so.

Realisically, for consistently good results, you'll need to be shooting a stationery subject with a tripod and using live view, zoomed in to fine tune the focusing.

My process is something like this:

Clip Raynox onto telephoto zoom (very easily taken on and off). Manually focus the lens to roughly the middle of it's range. Set camera up at a distance where subject appears roughly in focus. Zoom in on live view and get focus spot on. Use as narrow aperture as you think you can get away with for bigger DOF. Fire away (I use a remote release as the slightest camera movement can knock the focus out).

The results can be excellent but you can see that you aren't going to be just pointing and shooting. I paid £30 for mine and at that sort of price, I really don't think you can go wrong but personally I'm now moving on to a pukka sigma macro lens.
 
This was taken with a 50mm f/1.8 (Nikon variety) and 68mm (full set) of Kenko tubes and a shoe mounted flash:


Woodlouse by jomike, on Flickr

The Kenko tubes are not cheap but you retain AF and aperture control. I got mine S/H from the classifieds here, so worth keeping an eye out for.
The Raynox is the cheaper option if you just want to dabble with macro.
 
Cheers all.

Next question, if I'm considering buying the extention tubes priced at about £140 (assuming I can't get 2nd hand), is there a lens for the same sort of money that'd give better results?
 
I just picked up a 50mm Sigma Macro 2.8 on Ebay for less than £90. It's limited in terms of focal length in that, you'll scare off any insects and it may block light to your subject but on the flip side it double as a lovely portrait lens. Maybe worth a look at similar options.
 
Nemesis said:
Cheers all.

Next question, if I'm considering buying the extention tubes priced at about £140 (assuming I can't get 2nd hand), is there a lens for the same sort of money that'd give better results?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly - keep an eye on the for sale section.

One thing about macros is they are basically quite simple designs to manufacture and I don't think I've ever heard of a bad one. Rather the opposite actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top