The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Nuzik said:
Could be a cheap way into a macro, saves buying another lens
Click to expand...


Definitely, that's what I used in between macro lenses I owned, used to buy and sell lenses a lot. Had a few 105, a 60mm, tried macro rings and reversed lenses, the raynox was as good as any. maybe you won't get 1:1 but you'll get in pretty close and maintain AF
 
Nuzik said:
Could be a cheap way into a macro, saves buying another lens
Click to expand...
They are pretty decent. Takes a while to get used to especially if using on a zoom lens, DOF is very shallow and working distance can be very small depending on FL, more so than a standard macro lens from my experience. However, you can get surprisingly good results with it. I forgot about mine, maybe I should try it with the Fuji as focus peaking makes macro much easier.
 
I used a mix of the manual focus aids earlier, but found just using the focus assist button to confirm clarity was easiest for me. So long as you don't move, or breathe! before firing :D
 
Cagey75 said:
I used a mix of the manual focus aids earlier, but found just using the focus assist button to confirm clarity was easiest for me. So long as you don't move, or breathe! before firing :D
Click to expand...


@Nuzik I used to be so bad at tagging, well, uploading to Flickr even, but I do have a couple on there shot using the raynox - Just an example, this was on the 85 1.8 [a lens with usually crappy close focussing] https://www.flickr.com/photos/cagey75/15158024120/in/photolist-p6tuvs-p6sQts
 
Last edited:
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just a close-up shot of some "Frost Crystals" on the top of a fence panel.

X-T1, 55-200mm Lens @ 200mm, 1/4sec @ F22, 200-ISO, with a Rynox 202.
Frost Crystals (1)-1547 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking.,(y):fuji:


George.
Click to expand...

These close up looks good with rynox tried to find the one you got as that would interest me rather than getting a macro lens
 
Nuzik said:
better get a camera first...
Click to expand...

One on pre order [emoji106] has been for a few days. With a option don't have to buy when it arrives if change mind [emoji6]
 
Cagey75 said:
That's what I mean, the 202 is 37mm specific, the 150/250 are not. You asked which one @G.K.Jnr. used ;)
Click to expand...

How would he got that on that lens surely it a bigger thread unless like u said step up ring.
 
rookies said:
How would he got that on that lens surely it a bigger thread unless like u said step up ring.
Click to expand...


Yeah you can get rings to step up and down to suit just about any size. You can suffer massive vignetting if the filter/add on is a lot smaller than your default front element though.
 
rookies said:
These close up looks good with rynox tried to find the one you got as that would interest me rather than getting a macro lens
Click to expand...


Many thanks Andrew, much appreciated.(y)

"This shot was with the Raynox MSN 202"

George.
 
Cagey75 said:
Yeah you can get rings to step up and down to suit just about any size. You can suffer massive vignetting if the filter/add on is a lot smaller than your default front element though.
Click to expand...

That what I though. Are these snap on good?
 
this was my first attempt handheld with the raynox 250 on a Nikon d3300 50mm 1.8g. i sold it not long after as seeing what others could do i gave up,but I've since bought another one to try on my D7200 at some point,though i have just bought a Sigma 105 macro so
not sure how much use the raynox will get.
DSC_0133 by Chris B, on Flickr
 
This is the setup with the MSN 202 on board the 55-200mm lens and the Nissin i40 on a home made bracket.


This shot was done to show the setup and was done using an X30 camera and natural light.
FMMB (3)-31912 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: For looking.,(y):fuji:

George.
 
Last edited:
You're having to crop a lot I imagine?

Liking the rig though. I've made some home jobby macro soft boxes and diffusers over the years :)
 
Cagey75 said:
You're having to crop a lot I imagine?

Liking the rig though. I've made some home jobby macro soft boxes and diffusers over the years :)
Click to expand...


There's a tiny bit of vignetting at 55mm, but hardly noticable and easily taken out in PP. Zoom a little bit and all is just fine but easier to work with at the longer settings.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
There's a tiny bit of vignetting at 55mm, but hardly noticable and easily taken out in PP. Zoom a little bit and all is just fine but easier to work with at the longer settings.(y)

George.
Click to expand...


Nice, might just consider it for my 55-200 at some stage. Be a LOT easier than the hefty macro i have atm! Only good thing about that lens is of course, it's still great for portraits. It's got nicer bokeh than anything I've used in a long while. Manual focus only though. That's not a biggy for macro, i think the best macro is always MF, no matter the set up
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Nice, might just consider it for my 55-200 at some stage. Be a LOT easier than the hefty macro i have atm! Only good thing about that lens is of course, it's still great for portraits. It's got nicer bokeh than anything I've used in a long while. Manual focus only though. That's not a biggy for macro, i think the best macro is always MF, no matter the set up
Click to expand...


The scene view with the 55-200mm and Raynox 202 is (16mm @ 55mm FL) & (6mm @ 200mm FL) just about 4 times life size which is what the frost shot is.(y)

The same setup but using the Raynox 250 will give a scene view of (46mm @ 55mm FL) & (15mm @ 200mm FL) or 3mm short of twice life size.(y)

George.
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Through it was a thread filter not snap on like 250??
Click to expand...


You can get the snap on adapter for it. It may fit the same one as the 150/250? You can screw the elements out of those too.

I sold my 150 a while ago, but I wouldn't mind having one again, the 250 maybe for handiness. Nice to have in the bag and snap on and off when desired. I never noticed any loss of image quality using the 150 tbh, just look after it as if it were a lens and you'd be fine.
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Through it was a thread filter not snap on like 250??
Click to expand...


Its snap on just the same as the 250, but the 202 mount has a different size internal thread. The setup shot shows it clearly mounted to the snap on adapter that comes with the unit.(y)

George.
 
Last edited:
G.K.Jnr. said:
No Keith, I did get mine from Amazon a couple of years ago, but I bought them both individually. That link shows the Raynox 505 which I don't have.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

It gets confusing just looking at add ons to lenses lol, I'm grand for now for macro at least. This lens I have adapted is bloody cumbersome at times, but not like i wasn't used to it already. just on the D800E it was obviously better balanced, and I had AF as a crutch.
 
Noticed that I've hardly had a prime lens on my XT2 since it arrived, been using the 16-55/50-140 combo almost exclusively with a little bit of the 12mm, think it might be time to move on the 16/23! Only really need the primes for travelling and I'm hoping the new X100 might be available before my next trip away!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Noticed that I've hardly had a prime lens on my XT2 since it arrived, been using the 16-55/50-140 combo almost exclusively with a little bit of the 12mm, think it might be time to move on the 16/23! Only really need the primes for travelling and I'm hoping the new X100 might be available before my next trip away!
Click to expand...

Whooooha!

Epic déjà vu :D
 
chrism_scotland said:
Noticed that I've hardly had a prime lens on my XT2 since it arrived, been using the 16-55/50-140 combo almost exclusively with a little bit of the 12mm, think it might be time to move on the 16/23! Only really need the primes for travelling and I'm hoping the new X100 might be available before my next trip away!
Click to expand...
Hmm, 16 you say? [emoji1]
 
Chaps if you could get by with one prime only to capture family moments or the kids which prime would give the greatest flexibility? Tempted to upgrade the RX100 that sometimes fails to deliver decent images in low light when out with the family. Was thinking maybe a GoPro 5 for video and small compact prime and XT1 for the photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top