Couple of questions re raynox 250 macro adapters

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by snerkler, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    I'm wanting to get into macro photography but won't be able to afford a dedicated lens for a while, but another member advised me about the raynox 250 adapter which looks a good interim option. I thought I'd start a new thread rather than it being lost on another as it might help others who may be looking into this adapter.

    Looking on the website it says that the snap on adapter is only suitable for lenses with a filter diameter up to 67mm. Whilst this will be OK for my Sony 55-300mm lens it won't fit my Sony 16-50mm which has a filter diameter of 72mm. Ideally I'd like to use the 16-50mm lens as it has much better IQ. Is there an adapter for large diameter lenses?

    Secondly, it says the min focussing distance is 109mm with the lens set to infinity, but is this on top of the original lens' min focus, 109mm from the adapter regardless of which lens, or 109mm from the sensor? I assume it can't be the latter as some lenses are longer than 109mm.

    If it's 109mm from the front of the adapter is this going to be far enough away to not scare critters away? I know the sigma 105mm has a min focus of 312mm, but this is from the sensor, so taking into account the length of the lens being 126mm, and the sensor being towards the back of the body, I'd estimate that the front of the lens would be about 165mm away, so 56mm (2") further than the raynox (assuming the 109mm of the raynox is from the front of the lens).

    Any help appreciated.
     
  2. simon ess

    simon ess
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +596
    I'm not aware of an adapter for bigger lens diameters. You could try a step down ring but you might have vignetting.

    Can't answer the focal length question accurately - i.e. I don't know.

    I do know you'll be damn close.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2013
  3. Ugg10

    Ugg10
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,023
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,458
    The adaptor for the 250 is a spring clip like a filter cap that you pinch, place on the end of the lens and release so as Simon says you will probably need a step down ring for a 72mm.

    Is the 16-50 a lens designed for crop cameras (suspect it is), if so then I suspect you will have serious vignetting on this lens. On my EFS17-85, even at 85 you get an image inside a black circle. On my 70-200 it is OK as this is designed for a full frame sensor.

    As for min distance from the end of the lens I find the 250 reduces the focal distance by about a factor of 3 to 4 from the minimum, even when focussed at infinity e.g. my 50mm f1.8 has a min focal distance of 45cm, with the 250 this is down to about 10-15cm giving only a couple of cm from the end of the lens, on the 70-200 the min focal distactance is 1.2m and this is reduced to about 30-40cm or about 10-15 from the end of the lens. Not sure whether this is consistent with your calcs but looks like the 109mm is similarr to my 50mm f1.8 lens measurements and so if from the sensor plane.

    Also note that with the 250 the focus ring is almost reduntant, set it to infinity and then bob around by moving yourself to get focus, unles you use a tripod, set the focus and then wait for the flies to land. On the longer zooms you can also use the zoom to focus, bit counter intuitive but can work.

    If you want me to do some measurement I may have some time tomorrow evening - I can do it for a crop 17-85, a full frame 50mm f1.8, 70-200 and 100-300.

    Hope this helps
     
  4. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks for your help guys.

    I guess using this with my 16-50mm is out then. My 55-300mm has a focus distance of 1.4m, so even if this is reduced by 3x it will still have a min focus of 46cm. Although the IQ isn't as good as my 16-50mm this looks like my only option until I can afford a dedicated 'longish range' macro.
     
  5. Bagger

    Bagger
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Leicester
    Ratings:
    +227
    What about using extension tubes instead ?

    roughly, on a crop sensor you'll need 1mm of tube per 1mm of focal length to achieve 1:1 magnification.
    Be aware though there are cheap tubes and good tubes. With the cheap tubes you wont have the ability to auto focus or set the aperture, so you'll always be wide open which is a definite no in macro photography.
     
  6. Ugg10

    Ugg10
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,023
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,458
    Difference with the extension tubes is you get a very dark view finder whereas with the raynox you do not. Not sure about the Sony but there is the "depth of field preview button" trick to set smaller apertures on canon lenses/cameras.
     
  7. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    Don't bother with the shorter lens anything lower than 90mm for macro isn't very practical.


    Regarding image quality as you will be stopping down to like F/11 the difference will be minimal, perhaps due to diffraction the tele lens might be better.
     
  8. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks again. I've thought about extension tubes, but then we're going up in cost again, and I was just planning on getting something to tide me over until I can afford a proper lens so not wanting to spend a lot of money. The Raynox is only £35, and even if I only get £15 when I sell it on it's not exactly cost me a lot :smashin:

    Thoughts are at the mo are to get the raynox and use it with my 55-300mm. IQ might not be as good as I was hoping, but it should still be decent and it'll give me practice in the macro technique.

    How good will my pop up flash be for this scenario?
     
  9. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    I've just found a set of extension tubes for £45 that allow auto focus etc so these are now an option. Which will produce better images, the raynox or extension tubes?

    How do extension tubes affect distance from the subject. Currently my 16-50mm has a min focus distance of 30cm, which is from the sensor. If the min focus distance doesn't change then the extension tubes won't be favourable as you've added length to the lens and so the end of the lens will be closer to the subject :rolleyes:

    As for the viewfinder being dark, would this also be the case with the sony as it's an EVF, and you can adjust the brightness of the viewfinder?
     
  10. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    Pop flash is not recommended but doable, but the amazing sun at the mo is Brill for macro
     
  11. Bagger

    Bagger
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Leicester
    Ratings:
    +227
    Extension tubes are a weird experience to use to say the least. you'll spend time focusing with the zoom ring and the focus ring to fine adjust.
    With my 60d and my 15-85 and 31mm extension tube. Lens set to 50mm ish the working room from the end of the lens to subject is about 3cm but subject to sensor plane is 22cm. working room is lens dependant.
    This was juast taken with the above details.
    [​IMG]
    IMG_1800 by mick.1965, on Flickr

    There's nothing wrong with using the pop up flash as long as you have a diffuser on the end of the lens place at an angle to bounce the flash down, easily made with the side of a plastic milk bottle.

    All of these where taken with pop up flash and tubes Nifty fifty - a set on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013
  12. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks for the info. The strange focussing doesn't bother me as I'm sure I'll get used to it with time. The working distance of 3cm is much more of an issue though. Do you know what the focus distance is without extension tubes so I can get an idea of how much it is effected?

    I think whichever option I choose I'm not going to be able to use my 16-50mm lens :( When compared to the 16-50mm lens I'm finding my 55-300mm lens disappointing in terms of image quality and not sure how it will perform with extension tubes. Although I took this today which didn't turn out too bad, especially considering it was shot at 1600 ISO, and is cropped heavily.

    [​IMG]
    DSC03615 by snerkler, on Flickr


    I really like some of your bird pics on your flickr account. How do you get that close without scaring them off? I can't get anywhere near that close, and with my lens at 300mm focal length robins at tits etc look tiny, and if I crop to give an equivalent size IQ is poor :(

    Edit: Do you have a picture of your make shift diffuser, or can you point me in the direction of where I can find pics of such contraptions please?
     
  13. Bagger

    Bagger
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Leicester
    Ratings:
    +227
    The minimum focus distance at that length without tubes is 17cm from the end of the lens.
    The 15 - 85 is quite long at 50 mm when compared to my old nifty fify. That if I remember correctly had quite a bit of working distance at 1:1 ( 50mm with 50mm of tube)

    The diffuser was made with the side of a milk bottle and some garden wire and a elastic band.
    The picture is of it on the end of my 60mm macro
    [​IMG]

    The bird pictures are with a cheapo 55-250 IS. Sit still in the garden and patience, :) They are cropped though, roughly 50 %
     
  14. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks again, most helpful. I assume the diffuser is the reduce the intensity of the light. I can actually reduce the flash intensity in camera, would this be sufficient or is there another purpose for the diffuser, does it somehow spread the light?

    I'm a bit concerned about using the flash as currently to get as close up as possible I use my lens at 300mm, but when using flash my shutter speed reduces to a max speed of 1/250, which is not fast enough for the focal length let alone stopping the movement of the critters :facepalm:
     
  15. Bagger

    Bagger
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Leicester
    Ratings:
    +227
    The diffuser softens the flash and as its angled it bounces the light downwards.
    Because you are so close, without the angled diffuser the lens can cast a shadow on your subject.
     
  16. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks :thumbsup:
     
  17. simon ess

    simon ess
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +596
    That's really neat Bagger.
     

Share This Page

Loading...