What is the general consensus on the Raynox 250? I would like to try some macro and these seem an inexpensive way of getting experience, or am I wasting my money when it could be put towards a "proper" macro lens. Obviously I appreciate there is no comparison really, and I know a macro lens can be used as a "normal" lens too, but what do TPers think.
Raynox macro attachment
- Thread starter madmardle
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,389
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Excellent for macro, just make sure it's the 250 you want and not the 150.
The 250 IMVHO just gives too much magnification for every day, in the field work, I now use the 150.
The 250 IMVHO just gives too much magnification for every day, in the field work, I now use the 150.
- Messages
- 227
- Name
- Lucy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've been spending some time playing around with the Raynox DCR 150 and think it's excellent value for money. I've got the DCR 250 on order right now and can't wait for it to arrive.
I think the DCR 150 is very useful for most things and a good way to get started if you have no macro experience. To give some examples of its versitility, here is what I've done recently..
On a 50mm prime: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/lucybridges/sets/72157629714421727/
At 300mm: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/lucybridges/7035616859/in/photostream (heavy crop)
I think the DCR 150 is very useful for most things and a good way to get started if you have no macro experience. To give some examples of its versitility, here is what I've done recently..
On a 50mm prime: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/lucybridges/sets/72157629714421727/
At 300mm: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/lucybridges/7035616859/in/photostream (heavy crop)
- Messages
- 1,902
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- No
Definitely a good first step into macro. I used one on a fuji bridge camera for a few years and it was an excellent introduction to macro photography and I got some results I'm still very pleased with like this:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/adamhphotography/5096935015/in/photostream
I still use it on my sigma 150mm macro now for even more magnification. As Dave in Wales pointed out, the 250 is quite extreme in it's magnification. If you only want to shoot very small things then it'll do well but for some larger things like flowers or butterflies you won't be able to go far enough out, for those the 150 would be better suited.
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/adamhphotography/5096935015/in/photostream
I still use it on my sigma 150mm macro now for even more magnification. As Dave in Wales pointed out, the 250 is quite extreme in it's magnification. If you only want to shoot very small things then it'll do well but for some larger things like flowers or butterflies you won't be able to go far enough out, for those the 150 would be better suited.
- Messages
- 345
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Awesome bit of kit for the money.
I used the DCR250 with my Fuji bridge camera, and I now use it on my D7000 with a 50mm. Take a look at my flickr, the last 4 or 5 shots were all taken using the Raynox & 50mm.
It'll certainly keep me going until I can afford a dedicated macro lens (likely to be at least a year).
I used the DCR250 with my Fuji bridge camera, and I now use it on my D7000 with a 50mm. Take a look at my flickr, the last 4 or 5 shots were all taken using the Raynox & 50mm.
It'll certainly keep me going until I can afford a dedicated macro lens (likely to be at least a year).
Thanks everybody, I hadn't even realised there were two versions, from your replies it looks like I will get one, I just need to decide which one will suit me best. I suppose when I get one I will soon find out which of my lenes are most suitable. I have a 35mm, a 18-135 and a 70-300.
Thanks again for the replies.
Thanks again for the replies.
Wow, I've just had a look at all your images on Flickr, I didn't have time this morning, they are all incredible and much more than I ever hope to achieve.
Taking Dave's point about which magnification to go for, I think that Lucy's photo of the spider, although heavily cropped as she says, means that the 150 would be my best bet. Having said that though, even if I get both it's still going to be less than a dedicated macro lens I would have thought.
Thanks for all your help.
Taking Dave's point about which magnification to go for, I think that Lucy's photo of the spider, although heavily cropped as she says, means that the 150 would be my best bet. Having said that though, even if I get both it's still going to be less than a dedicated macro lens I would have thought.
Thanks for all your help.