Raynox DCR-250

Rob87

Rob87

Messages
148
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening
I loved doing close up photos on my bridge camera and would like to develop that more with my 600d. As I only have the 2 kit lenses at the moment and need to master how to use these before I shell out a small fortune on more lenses, I have found a Raynox DCR-250 that is clipped onto the end of the lens and takes brat close up shots.

I have seen a thread on here with photos that people have posted, but what are peoples opinions on it and its capabilities on an 18-55mm kit lens?

Thanks
 
I think they're excellent. You'll want some extra light to get the best results though
 
Would a cheap ring light work or would I need a more substantial one as I've seen a few on eBay for 30 quid. I know that they willbe pants for day to day but does anyone know if they are good for macro?
 
I love my Raynox. While I hanker after a dedicated Macro lens, the Raynox 250 will keep me going until then! I shot these yesterday with my Raynox and 85mm f/1.8;

1

bugs by Odd Jim, on Flickr#

2

Dew 1 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

3


I've never used it on an 18-55 but did on my 18-135 and it caused some vignetting. Thats easily taken care of in post. I did use it on my 50mm on a crop camera (50d) and it worked beautifully, so i should imagine at 55mm where you will want it it will be very effective (the above shots are from my 6d).
Daffodil 2 by Odd Jim, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I think I am going to bite the bullet and get this. Lovely shot of the daff trumpet.
 
the problem with raynox + ring light is the raynox just clips on, and then the ring light clips onto the filter thread, quite abit of weight just on clips, specialy if it rotates when you focus, but you can use a step down filter ring with the raynox lens screwed into that (i think its a 43mm rear thread) so doing that you have a secure mount, and you cant misalign the raynox either.

ringlights (led type) help most of all to give you a working light, might give you a stop or two extra light, but a flash can give you *way* more light, and a very brief effective exposure at high f numbers, which helps give sharper results
 
Rob87 said:
I have seen a thread on here with photos that people have posted, but what are peoples opinions on it and its capabilities on an 18-55mm kit lens?
Click to expand...

You may get quite serious vignetting with the 18-55. If you have a 55-something then you will may get much less vignetting. You may get none. For example, on my micro four thirds Panasonic G3 the 45-200 and 45-175 lenses don't have any vignetting with the Raynox 250 or Raynox 150 but the 14-42 has very serious vignetting (as in "looking through a porthole") at the wide end and the vignetting doesn't completely disappear until more than 30mm. On my APS-C Canon 70D the 55-250 doesn't have any vignetting with the Raynox 250 or 150 but the 18-55 has very serious vignetting at the wide end and the vignetting doesn't completely disappear until about 30mm.

Rob87 said:
I loved doing close up photos on my bridge camera and would like to develop that more with my 600d. As I only have the 2 kit lenses at the moment and need to master how to use these before I shell out a small fortune on more lenses, I have found a Raynox DCR-250 that is clipped onto the end of the lens and takes brat close up shots.
Click to expand...

I used achromats like the Raynox 150 and 250 with bridge cameras for five years, and with micro four thirds for two years. You can get terrific results with either combination. I recently bought a Canon 70D and some serious, prime, macro lenses: Canon 100L (which goes up to 1:1) and MPE-65 (which goes from 1x to 5x magnification). After doing some testing and comparisons I sent the MPE-65 back because it is not suitable for my purposes. I am keeping the 100L but will probably only be using it for special purposes (working in wet weather and, in better weather, photographing insects in flight). It looks like I will mainly be using achromats with the Canon 55-250 STM for most of my closeup/macro work. This will raise some eyebrows no doubt; it is documented in this thread for anyone who is interested. But my main message is simple - I wouldn't underestimate what can be done with achromats like the Raynox 250, and there are circumstances in which achromats may be the better option.

I much prefer to work with natural light but I find using some sort of artificial light is often necessary.
 
GardenersHelper said:
You may get quite serious vignetting with the 18-55. If you have a 55-something then you will may get much less vignetting. You may get none. For example, on my micro four thirds Panasonic G3 the 45-200 and 45-175 lenses don't have any vignetting with the Raynox 250 or Raynox 150 but the 14-42 has very serious vignetting (as in "looking through a porthole") at the wide end and the vignetting doesn't completely disappear until more than 30mm. On my APS-C Canon 70D the 55-250 doesn't have any vignetting with the Raynox 250 or 150 but the 18-55 has very serious vignetting at the wide end and the vignetting doesn't completely disappear until about 30mm.



I used achromats like the Raynox 150 and 250 with bridge cameras for five years, and with micro four thirds for two years. You can get terrific results with either combination. I recently bought a Canon 70D and some serious, prime, macro lenses: Canon 100L (which goes up to 1:1) and MPE-65 (which goes from 1x to 5x magnification). After doing some testing and comparisons I sent the MPE-65 back because it is not suitable for my purposes. I am keeping the 100L but will probably only be using it for special purposes (working in wet weather and, in better weather, photographing insects in flight). It looks like I will mainly be using achromats with the Canon 55-250 STM for most of my closeup/macro work. This will raise some eyebrows no doubt; it is documented in this thread for anyone who is interested. But my main message is simple - I wouldn't underestimate what can be done with achromats like the Raynox 250, and there are circumstances in which achromats may be the better option.

I much prefer to work with natural light but I find using some sort of artificial light is often necessary.
Click to expand...
This is true, but you'll never use a Raynox at the wide end of anything? That defeats the purpose!
 
i found the raynox worked much better on longer lenses. when i used it on my 70-300 at the 300 end i got this shot from about 12 feet away.

( white mushrooms no bigger than about 2 inches )
9473541601_350ec41b58_c.jpg


also used Extension tubes and got even closer but the DOF was about 2mm so had to mess around and focus stack
 
dean messenger said:
i found the raynox worked much better on longer lenses. when i used it on my 70-300 at the 300 end i got this shot from about 12 feet away.

( white mushrooms no bigger than about 2 inches )
9473541601_350ec41b58_c.jpg


also used Extension tubes and got even closer but the DOF was about 2mm so had to mess around and focus stack
Click to expand...

Are you correct when saying 12 feet?
 
Last edited:
between 12 and 15 feet. yes, the mushrooms were on my dning room table and i had the camera on tripod at far end of the room with me squashed up against the wall!
 
I have a longer kit lens going up to 250mm so it looks like I will be using this instead. Thanks all for the plethora of knowledge and hints on this. I never knew you could get such good shots at such a distance either. 12 feet, who would have thought it?
 
dean messenger said:
between 12 and 15 feet. yes, the mushrooms were on my dning room table and i had the camera on tripod at far end of the room with me squashed up against the wall!
Click to expand...
At the risk of being a nuisence on this can you confirm that you had the raynox on and took the shot from 12 feet away or you took it from 12 feet away without the raynox. With my 300mm lens with a 250 raynox the furthest away I can get is about 3 inches?
 
You wouldn't get that mushroom shot from 12 feet away with a Raynox. Using it on my old 55-250, at 250 you're still up close and personal. In fact, I seem to recall you are governed by the focal distance of the Raynox, not the host lens.

Also, you don't get a wide depth of field. The mushroom shots show both mushrooms I'm perfect focus. This is impossible when using a Raynox.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
This is true, but you'll never use a Raynox at the wide end of anything? That defeats the purpose!
Click to expand...

I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn from what I wrote. For the avoidance of doubt, for each of my achromats I use the entire range of focal lengths for which that achromat doesn't vignette on the lens it is being used on (and occasionally focal lengths where it does vignette a bit). For longer zooms such as APS-C 55-250 on which my achromats don't vignette at any focal length that includes the widest angle/shortest focal length. In this way I have complete coverage of all scene widths from about 27.5 cm to about 4.5mm (4.5mm being 5:1 for Canon APS-C).


Scene widths for 55-250 and 100L by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
The 250 will be fine at the 55mm end of the kits lens, I've used it, also a cheap ring flash will be ok attached to the raynox.....tried that too.
 
12ft @ 300mm sounds like unraynoxed to me, you would be closer with a raynox, even at infinity i think...
 
odd jim said:
You wouldn't get that mushroom shot from 12 feet away with a Raynox. Using it on my old 55-250, at 250 you're still up close and personal. In fact, I seem to recall you are governed by the focal distance of the Raynox, not the host lens.

Also, you don't get a wide depth of field. The mushroom shots show both mushrooms I'm perfect focus. This is impossible when using a Raynox.
Click to expand...
as i said i also used extension tubes.. and a technique called focus stacking so no its not impossible. the mushrooms are if i recall 25 images focus stacked. a pain in the butt to do making millimieter adjustments to the lens for each shot
 
dean messenger said:
as i said i also used extension tubes.. and a technique called focus stacking so no its not impossible. the mushrooms are if i recall 25 images focus stacked. a pain in the butt to do making millimieter adjustments to the lens for each shot
Click to expand...
Ah, my bad, that makes sense, and also a very good idea!
 
beyond the blue said:
At the risk of being a nuisence on this can you confirm that you had the raynox on and took the shot from 12 feet away or you took it from 12 feet away without the raynox. With my 300mm lens with a 250 raynox the furthest away I can get is about 3 inches?
Click to expand...
dean messenger said:
as i said i also used extension tubes.. and a technique called focus stacking so no its not impossible. the mushrooms are if i recall 25 images focus stacked. a pain in the butt to do making millimieter adjustments to the lens for each shot
Click to expand...

Hmmm..... The working distance for a Raynox 250 is about four inches, and for a Raynox 150 about 6 inches. And extension tubes decrease working distance (for example see here). So I still find 12 feet puzzling.
 
It is very puzzling, I would say that is the type of shot you could expect to get from a 300mm from 12 feet away with a slight crop. I do quite a bit of focus stacking and regularly use a stack of 25 shots to get a decent DOF shooting a dead fly let alone two mushrooms. Something just doesn't add up here. I recon Dean is mistaken with this somehow, if not I'd love to know how it was done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top