Raynox 250 or 50mm f1.8?
- Thread starter Mythmaker
- Start date
Quite heavily discussed in the MACRO section. I suggest reading the stickies there where this is covered extensively. Plus the existing 50+ threads on this.
Existing 50+ threads? From which forum? As far as I can see, there's no macro discussion forum here, only a gallery.
Or are you referring to this singular thread?
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255554&page=7
There is *no* mention of my question, or much info on coupling rings.
Thanks for the more constructive answer
May I know why?
It all depends on what you have as the main lens.
Its more flexible if its a zoom since you can then vary magnification by changing the focal length on the lens.
With a long prime as the main lens, usually the quality is a bit better. (but little variability to the magnification)
The Raynox will be easier to put on and off because its clip on.
For the same FL main lens, the Raynox should give more magnification too.
In the end for me, I find that they both work on the same principle of closing up the minimum focus distance via a 'close up lens' so it just boils down to what you already have (eg. already have a cheap 50/1.8 to try) and want to spend.
Thanks for the info!
So if it's the same main lens, the raynox would give better IQ eh. Noted haha. I do have a raynox. I also have a coupling ring. I have sold my macro lens long ago though, decided it's not really worth it to keep. Thinking whether a Canon 50 f1.4 + raynox would be better or a 50 f1.4 + 50 f1.8 would be better lol. If the latter is better I would go ahead and buy a 50 1.8, but since you mention it's not as good, I guess I'll just stick with a raynox then
Thanks for the info!
So if it's the same main lens, the raynox would give better IQ eh. Noted haha. I do have a raynox. I also have a coupling ring. I have sold my macro lens long ago though, decided it's not really worth it to keep. Thinking whether a Canon 50 f1.4 + raynox would be better or a 50 f1.4 + 50 f1.8 would be better lol. If the latter is better I would go ahead and buy a 50 1.8, but since you mention it's not as good, I guess I'll just stick with a raynox then
Raynox just gives a higher magnification.
IQ between the 2 options is about the same.
As Bukittimah said, lighting is more important
Existing 50+ threads? From which forum? As far as I can see, there's no macro discussion forum here, only a gallery.
Or are you referring to this singular thread?
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255554&page=7
There is *no* mention of my question, or much info on coupling rings.
Thanks for the more constructive answer
May I know why?
Note that I am not too much into macro. But I did a couple of macro shots once... with both Raynox and reversing of 50mm lens.
The Raynox is easier to use as compared to the 50mm lens in my opinion.
My set up with the reverse 50mm lens on a 100mm macro lens.
A shot with Raynox 250 on my 100mm macro,
The usual disclaimer, I am not expert in this field, the above is the best I could do.
(I am not a photographer, just somebody who happened to have a few cameras).
Last edited:
Thanks for the info!
So if it's the same main lens, the raynox would give better IQ eh. Noted haha. I do have a raynox. I also have a coupling ring. I have sold my macro lens long ago though, decided it's not really worth it to keep. Thinking whether a Canon 50 f1.4 + raynox would be better or a 50 f1.4 + 50 f1.8 would be better lol. If the latter is better I would go ahead and buy a 50 1.8, but since you mention it's not as good, I guess I'll just stick with a raynox then
If you use 50mm lens with 50mm lens reverse mount, you get 50/50 = 1x magnification only.
If you use 200mm lens to body and 50mm lens reverse mount to the 200mm, you get 200/50 = 4x magnification
and so on....
Direct reverse lens onto the body requires different calculation for magnification achieved
Wow, didn't know this formula exists. Any idea on the working distance? No point having 4x MM when working distance is 1cm? haha.
Depends on the lenses mounted. Can try them out. Working distance will definitely be very small
Last edited:
Do you mind sharing what you intend to shoot? Without that info all suggestions are just shots in the wind.
My target is Shikhei Goh's level. Or biker11 from 500px. Both of which requires magnification of way more than 1:1.
Getting a MPE-65 would be alot easier, just currently trying to see if there's other way of doing things (hence exploring raynox vs coupling rings). Or as a backup by using 70-200 f4 IS and raynox/coupling ring for some unplanned macro (in case I ever get a MPE-65, I can't possibly bring it everywhere I go lol).
Getting a MPE-65 would be alot easier, just currently trying to see if there's other way of doing things (hence exploring raynox vs coupling rings). Or as a backup by using 70-200 f4 IS and raynox/coupling ring for some unplanned macro (in case I ever get a MPE-65, I can't possibly bring it everywhere I go lol).
Last edited:
Similar threads
