Some Raynox MSN-202 examples

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
This post follows on from a discussion with Keith (@Cagey75) in this thread about the advantages of using a telezoom lens that does not extend when using powerful close-up lenses.

The Raynox MSN-202 is a powerful close-up lens. The Raynox 150 is +4.8 diopters, the Raynox 250 is +8 diopters. The MSN-202 is +25 diopters. It is quite difficult to use because of the high magnification it produces and the short working distance of around 30mm, which can make it difficult to illuminate the subject. On the infrequent occasions when I have used the MSN-202 I used it either mounted on an FZ200/FZ330 small sensor Panasonic bridge camera, or on a G series Panasonic micro four thirds camera (G3, G5, G80) mounted on a 45-175 lens which does not extend. As described in this post in the linked thread, using a non-extending lens makes the MSN-202 much easier (well, much less difficult) to use.

Here are eight examples of images of fairly small subjects captured with the MSN-202. It was mounted on an FZ200 for the third of these and on a 45-175 on a G5 for the others. All used minimum aperture, f/22 for the G5 and f/8 for the FZ200. All used autofocus. The subjects were definitely in motion (as in, moving around, not just waving antennae around or similar) for #3, #4, #6 and #8 and possibly #7 too.

The images were captured as raw between 2015 and 2017. I have reworked them with an experimental post processing workflow which started with my current workflow of batch processing in DXO Photolab, Silkypix and Lightroom, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom. There were some large crops involved of sizes which have given me image quality issues in the past (and did so again with these reworks), and as an experiment I produced JPEGs 1024 pixels wide and then used a trial version of Topaz AI Gigapixel to upsize them to 1400 pixels high. The versions here have been downsized to 1024 on the long side by Flickr to keep within this site's posting size guidelines. The 1400 pixel high versions are in this album at Flickr.

#1

1368 1 G5 ISO160 P1080936_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1368 2 G5 ISO400 P1180545_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1368 3 FZ330 ISO100 P1360282_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1368 4 G5 ISO 320 P1150075_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w-2_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1368 5G5 ISO 400 P1070306_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1368 6 G5 ISO400 P1070635_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1368 7 G5 ISO400 P1070460_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1368 8 G5 ISO400 P1080062_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1024w_TAIG by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Stunning set of macro images, amazing detail. I feel I need to up my game, and get out to shot more macro, if I can get anything close to these I'd be delighted.
 
Cagey75 said:
Stunning set of macro images, amazing detail.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Cagey75 said:
I feel I need to up my game, and get out to shot more macro, if I can get anything close to these I'd be delighted.
Click to expand...

For me at least, lots of practice and repetition helps (like learning to play a musical instrument I suppose). A few people get really good at it really quickly; not me though; it's been a ten year slow climb so far, and ongoing. Macro seems to be a complicated business to me, to do it well.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks.



For me at least, lots of practice and repetition helps (like learning to play a musical instrument I suppose). A few people get really good at it really quickly; not me though; it's been a ten year slow climb so far, and ongoing. Macro seems to be a complicated business to me, to do it well.
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem is that it is not done very much. I bet if a good friend of yours wanted to go out with you and take photos with you, he would get good really quickly.
These shots of yours make me wonder if I should use a MSN-202 with my Canon 60mm lens instead of my Canon MPE65 mm.
Would I still be able to take photos of Butterflies with it, or would I have to take it off?

The reason for doing this, is because I have a shoulder problem, so I can only use the Canon MPE65 mm (which weights 710g) when it is supported on something, whilst I can easily use my Canon 60mm (335 g) free hand
 
Another stonking set there Nick with for me, No 7 could well be the most frightening of them all if it was bigger, well lots bigger.
But as always they are all really good and you do like to show your best photos, well don`t we all :)
 
davholla said:
I think part of the problem is that it is not done very much. I bet if a good friend of yours wanted to go out with you and take photos with you, he would get good really quickly.
Click to expand...

That would be an interesting experiment. :)

davholla said:
These shots of yours make me wonder if I should use a MSN-202 with my Canon 60mm lens instead of my Canon MPE65 mm.
Would I still be able to take photos of Butterflies with it, or would I have to take it off?

The reason for doing this, is because I have a shoulder problem, so I can only use the Canon MPE65 mm (which weights 710g) when it is supported on something, whilst I can easily use my Canon 60mm (335 g) free hand
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I suspect that wouldn't work too well. With the MPE-65 I vaguely recall the working distance at 5:1 is around 40mm, and gets larger than that as the magnification decreases. So if you work more often at say 2:1 or 3:1 then 40mm would strike you as very close, and difficult to use.

With an MSN-202 the maximum working distance is around 30mm. (It should be around 40mm according to the calculations; but I am consistently measuring around 30mm on several lenses and cameras.)

If you are using an MSN-202 on a prime macro lens then that 30mm is the working distance with the lens focused at infinity, giving the minimum magnification for the setup. I get that 30mm working distance with my Sigma 105 macro on my 70D and with my Olympus 60mm macro on a G80, and the scene widths are 9mm and 12mm respectively. You have to reduce the working distance to get more magnification. For example the maximum magnification with the MSN-202 on the 105 macro is at around 20mm working distance, and with the 60mm macro around 15 mm, the respective scene widths being around 5mm and 7 mm.

Things are slightly better with the MSN-202 on a 55-250 STM on my 70D. At 55mm focal length the scene width is around 16mm and at 250mm focal length the scene width is around 4mm. The working distance is a constant 30mm throughout the zoom range.

These are really short working distances, and they don't get any better as the magnification decreases unlike with a macro lens. Could you live with that? Also, what flash arrangement are you using? You can't mount a front-fixed flash like the MT-24 EX on the MSN-202 (and would it work with working distances that short anyway?)

There are various options that might be better, depending on what scene size you want to be able to photograph. As one example (and I'm not recommending it, I just happen to know about it because it is my go to kit for flash-based photographing of medium-sized insects etc), my FZ330 with a Raynox 250 on it will cover scene widths from around 55mm to around 8mm, all at a minimum scene width of around 110mm. (And you get good autofocus across the size range too.) You can get greater magnification (with shorter working distances) by adding another close-up lens. The FZ330 with battery and a Raynox 250 weighs 748 grams. Downside: If you use a small sensor camera post processing becomes more important (IMO).

And a larger (micro four thirds) sensor option (again not a recommendation, just one I happen to know about it because I have used it a lot) would be a second hand Panasonic G5 with a wonderful (IMO) light, sharp, non-extending (great for close-up lenses) 45-175. With a pair of Raynox 250s this gives a minimum scene width of around 7mm and a maximum scene width of around 24mm, both at a working distance of around 43mm. With a Raynox 150 on a Raynox 250 this gives a minimum scene width of around 8.5mm and a maximum scene width of around 29mm, both at a working distance of around 52mm. These working distances are still rather short, and they don't increase as the magnification decreases. The total weight of this setup - camera and battery, 45-175 and two Raynoxes - is 720 grams. (The G5 with 45-175 was what I used with the MSN-202 for 7 of the images in the top post.)

I'm sure other folk here will be able to make suggestions based on the kit they are familiar with. Perhaps you might want to start a thread setting out what you need from a lighter setup and asking for suggestions?

davholla said:
Would I still be able to take photos of Butterflies with it, or would I have to take it off?
Click to expand...

You would need to take it off.
 
Graham said:
Another stonking set there Nick with for me, No 7 could well be the most frightening of them all if it was bigger, well lots bigger.
But as always they are all really good
Click to expand...

Thanks Graham.

Graham said:
and you do like to show your best photos, well don`t we all :)
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly do. :)
 
What a fascinating set of images Nick, so much detail.

I love viewing good macro images like this, and often thought I might give them ago, having just bought a 45-175mm for my EM5 MKII maybe I might start to look around for something to give me a little more magnification.
 
jakeblu said:
What a fascinating set of images Nick, so much detail.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

jakeblu said:
I love viewing good macro images like this, and often thought I might give them ago, having just bought a 45-175mm for my EM5 MKII maybe I might start to look around for something to give me a little more magnification.
Click to expand...

The 45-175 is a very good lens for using with close-up lenses; I have used it a lot for that. I wouldn't start with something as powerful as the Raynox MSN-202 that I used for these. Even for people with good experience of close-up/macro it can be extremely difficult and frustrating to use. Something like the Marumi 330 or Raynox 150 might be a good place to start.

Even better perhaps, get a 46 to 52 or 58 step up ring and spend £10 on a close-up filter set like this or this (it doesn't matter what brand, there are loads of them). You won't get good image quality because these are single pieces of glass; they won't be very sharp, especially towards the edges and corners, and you may get coloured fringes along high contrast edges. However, they will let you try out various strength of close-up lens (you can combine them, so for example a +1 and a +2 used together gives you +3) so you can see what gives you the magnification that best suits what you would like to photograph, and what it is like to use various magnifications (it gets more difficult as the magnification increases). You'll also find out whether you need to use flash for what you want to photograph. Having done that you will be in a good position to decide what close-up lens would best suit you. (Or whether you might prefer to try another approach like a macro lens and/or extension tubes. One of the advantages of micro four thirds of course is that with an adaptor you can use lots of different legacy lenses, some of which may be very inexpensive.)
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
What a fascinating set of images Nick, so much detail.

I love viewing good macro images like this, and often thought I might give them ago, having just bought a 45-175mm for my EM5 MKII maybe I might start to look around for something to give me a little more magnification.
Click to expand...
Go for it Steve.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks.



The 45-175 is a very good lens for using with close-up lenses; I have used it a lot for that. I wouldn't start with something as powerful as the Raynox MSN-202 that I used for these. Even for people with good experience of close-up/macro it can be extremely difficult and frustrating to use. Something like the Marumi 330 or Raynox 150 might be a good place to start.

Even better perhaps, get a 46 to 52 or 58 step up ring and spend £10 on a close-up filter set like this or this (it doesn't matter what brand, there are loads of them). You won't get good image quality because these are single pieces of glass; they won't be very sharp, especially towards the edges and corners, and you may get coloured fringes along high contrast edges. However, they will let you try out various strength of close-up lens (you can combine them, so for example a +1 and a +2 used together gives you +3) so you can see what gives you the magnification that best suits what you would like to photograph, and what it is like to use various magnifications (it gets more difficult as the magnification increases). You'll also find out whether you need to use flash for what you want to photograph. Having done that you will be in a good position to decide what close-up lens would best suit you. (Or whether you might prefer to try another approach like a macro lens and/or extension tubes. One of the advantages of micro four thirds of course is that with an adaptor you can use lots of different legacy lenses, some of which may be very inexpensive.)
Click to expand...
I appreciate the advice, thank you. I've bought the Neewer 52mm and a step up ring. Not expecting great results for a tenner, but at least I can now give it a go.
 
Amazing work as ever Nick, prob one of the best Macro togs Ive seen, if not at least on here.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top