Extension tubes or Raynox DCR 250?

Moor

Established Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
878
Reaction score
80
Points
241
I want to have a play around with macro but as proper lenses are in the region of £300 I want a cheaper option to get me started to see if I enjoy it before parting with a wad of cash. I will be using it on my 50D with a 50mm 1.8, I also have the kit lens, a 17-85, to have a play with too. Question is which method will give me the best results? I have seen auto extension tubes for around £50-60 and the raynox for similar cash, I'm edging slightly towards the tubes due to them not needing another piece of glass to magnify. Any thoughts and advice would be very welcome.
 
The IQ of the Raynox 250 looks to be pretty good from the samples posted on AVf using it so I wouldn't be too bothered about "another piece of glass" in this case.

Main advantage IMO that the tubes have is that you can use them either singly or stacked to get greater magnification or less depending on lens and what you're trying to do etc.

Without doubt the Raynox - or good quality threaded close-up lenses have - is a neater and easier to use solution and probably allows more light in so focussing may be a little easier too.

If I went with the Raynox I think I'd probably try the Raynox DCR-150 first as the DOF on the 250 is very shallow fro what I've seen but of course the magnification is greater with the 250 but to an extent you could compensate by using a lele-zoom or a longer prime....

I've got tubes and a screw on lens and keep meaning to try both together.... possibly even with my Macro lens.... :facepalm:

JIm
 
It's a guess but the prime 50mm 1.8 is likely to be best. If the lens can be set manually a lens reversing ring is also an option. Bellows are the most flexible though as you get the exact amount of magnification you need. Due to the magnification remember the aperture is effectively reduced requiring long shutter times or lots of light (a ringflash is ideal)
 
It's a guess but the prime 50mm 1.8 is likely to be best.

I find 50mm too small for Macro - the lens seems too close to the subject for me.

Try the Ext tubes first and if you can find a 150mm or 200mm f2.8 second hand on ebay a decent make and an adapter ring to fit to the Canon. Unless there is a nice old manual Canon kicking about. such as eBay Item number:360284566234. or Item number:170520875618 if you do not consider it sacrilege to put a nikkor on a Canon Body.
 
Thanks for the info. The minimum ficus distance on my 50mm is quite a distance, would the raynox allow me to get closer or simply magnify the subject to appear closer?
 
Thanks for the link jim, some really nice shots and some good info. Seems that he has a 49mm thread on his 50mm and the smallest thread the lens fits is 52mm, which is the right size for my 50mm.
 
Thanks for the link jim, some really nice shots and some good info. Seems that he has a 49mm thread on his 50mm and the smallest thread the lens fits is 52mm, which is the right size for my 50mm.

That's good to know :cool: - nice to have options ;)

Jim
 
The minimum ficus distance on my 50mm is quite a distance,
Extension rings / tubes would change that to a few inches and to get a decent magnification you could be as close as 1/2" from the front element.

The output from the Raynox may look good on a PC screen at 1024x768, but when you pixel-peep you will see the problems.
 
The output from the Raynox may look good on a PC screen at 1024x768, but when you pixel-peep you will see the problems.

I wouldn't agree with that.

I like the Raynox as a cheap alternative to a dedicated macro lens.
After trying my hand at macro with it I don't think I could justify spending money on a Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm, it simply wouldn't get used enough.

I've taken a few shots with a Tamron 70-300 at the 300 end in macro mode, it really does get close up but can be a pain to focus (dof is so narrow even at f18 or 20) and unless the light is very very good you need a flash.

It spends most of its life on my Minolta 35-105, the depth of field problem isn't as bad at lower focal lengths. The zoom range gives me a lot of variation.

I did get a step up ring for my 50mm f/1.7 but don't use it as I prefer the 35-105.

I would say thumbs up for the Raynox :thumbsup:

I have never tried extension tubes mind.
 
Hmmm tricky choice, there seems to be arguments both for and against. I'm leaning slightly towards the tubes, no real reason why though, I may order some and if I don't like them I can always stick them on evilbay and get a raynox. I would love to see some direct comparisons but not managed to find any as yet.
 
Hmmm tricky choice, there seems to be arguments both for and against. I'm leaning slightly towards the tubes, no real reason why though, I may order some and if I don't like them I can always stick them on evilbay and get a raynox. I would love to see some direct comparisons but not managed to find any as yet.

What sort of direct comparison do you mean ? - there'sloads of shots out there using each but do you mean a "side-by-side" comparsion of the same objects taken with the same camera using tubes and raynox ?


These may be of interest too :-

http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/discuss/72157623350510231/

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34265429

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...ssion/50296-cheap-macro-options-compared.html

http://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/18-55mm-lens----raynox-dcr-250-and-extension-tubes---80305

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59312&sid=5e2371d10182cb9303a88d66b996e608


Jim
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't agree with that.

I have never tried extension tubes mind.

I've tried both and stand by my statement.

Do you have a Flickr PRO account, if so would you post some full resolution shots from the Raynox combination.

Do not compare against a low quality Zoom as they will probably be equally bad, instead compare against a good quality (but old MF) fixed 150mm or 200mm with tubes.
 
Hmmm tricky choice, there seems to be arguments both for and against. I'm leaning slightly towards the tubes, no real reason why though, I may order some and if I don't like them I can always stick them on evilbay and get a raynox. I would love to see some direct comparisons but not managed to find any as yet.


If the tubes are just for a bit of fun to see how they work then a cheap set form Fleabat would be the way to go.

Do not get a Raynox equivalent from Fleabay you will do better with a milk bottle bottom they are truly CR@P.
 
If the tubes are just for a bit of fun to see how they work then a cheap set form Fleabat would be the way to go.

Do not get a Raynox equivalent from Fleabay you will do better with a milk bottle bottom they are truly CR@P.

What do you mean by a "raynox equivalent" Neil - cheapo £5 screw on close-up lens? - if so I "kind of" agree...


JIm
 
What do you mean by a "raynox equivalent" Neil - cheapo £5 screw on close-up lens? - if so I "kind of" agree...


JIm


No Jim, there are (or used to be) some front add on Macro lenses like the Raynox but of absolute rubbish quality, went for about £50.

Close up lenses are quite handy if you get something like Hoya ones and you only want to get to within about a foot with a 50mm lens. A set of 4 should be got for £20 or so.
 
Cheers Neil - o.k. - that explains it - I've got an old +3 like that (not macro just close-up) myself that's o.k. :)

JIm
 
I have no idea where you are looking, they are not 1024 at all. They link to the flickr page, from there you can select different sizes, including original. There are 9 photo's in all and 8 of them click through to flickr.
 
I have no idea where you are looking, they are not 1024 at all. They link to the flickr page, from there you can select different sizes, including original. There are 9 photo's in all and 8 of them click through to flickr.
Your post above links to
All available sizes | DSC09670 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
on which the largest size available is large 1024x768. it does say The owner has disabled downloading of their photos perhaps that is limiting what I can see.
 
I do have a PRO account, And so does Ibcus.

Why so he has - hadn't spotted that the click link displayed it in "My" non-pro login :facepalm:

So looks lie it may restrict viewable sizes after all as you suggest Neil if downloading isn't enabled - unless there's any finer granularity on the sharing on a Pro Account....

JIm
 
Why so he has - hadn't spotted that the click link displayed it in "My" non-pro login :facepalm:

So looks lie it may restrict viewable sizes after all as you suggest Neil if downloading isn't enabled - unless there's any finer granularity on the sharing on a Pro Account....

JIm

I have not played with those settings, I want people to be able to see the full resolution, it is the only way to accurately judge a lens, IMHO.
Copying for private use, I do not care, and I use the CC license so if anyone wants to publish my work (1 so far) they know they can contact me.
I presume you can see full resolution images on my site?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom