Raynox DCR-5320PRO 3-in-1 Macro Lens Set queries

[ryuggen]

Raynox DCR-5320PRO 3-in-1 Macro Lens Set

Anyone has actually bought this set? This macro set offers lower diopters of +5 compared to RAYNOX MSN-202 Super Macro Lens which gives +25. The prices for the former costs 3 times more than the the latter. I'm confused by which would be a better choice since one seems to offer less magnification but at 3 times the cost of one which offers 5 times more magnification at a third of the former's price.

For macro, isnt it always best to get the best magnification? If we wanted less, we could simply move further from the subject.

 

[ExplorerZ]

Raynox DCR-5320PRO 3-in-1 Macro Lens Set

Anyone has actually bought this set? This macro set offers lower diopters of +5 compared to RAYNOX MSN-202 Super Macro Lens which gives +25. The prices for the former costs 3 times more than the the latter. I'm confused by which would be a better choice since one seems to offer less magnification but at 3 times the cost of one which offers 5 times more magnification at a third of the former's price.

For macro, isnt it always best to get the best magnification? If we wanted less, we could simply move further from the subject.

theres a limit to how far away you can focus... if its too huge you might be just taking part of a larger subject (eg. butterfly)

 

[ryuggen]

Yup, I'm pretty worried about how far I can focus. As 5320 gives me a +5 diopter, its not as exciting as 250, which has 8. Yet, the price differences is 3 times difference...

As I would like to mount 5320 on 18-200, I'm afraid it might not have enuff to stop down to give a clear focus on the subject totally. I noticed that macro shooters tend to focus on the face while the body is totally OOF. As my lens is not a macro lens, I'm afraid that I couldnt even achieve the basic focus.

 

[ExplorerZ]

Yup, I'm pretty worried about how far I can focus. As 5320 gives me a +5 diopter, its not as exciting as 250, which has 8. Yet, the price differences is 3 times difference...

As I would like to mount 5320 on 18-200, I'm afraid it might not have enuff to stop down to give a clear focus on the subject totally. I noticed that macro shooters tend to focus on the face while the body is totally OOF. As my lens is not a macro lens, I'm afraid that I couldnt even achieve the basic focus.

eh seriously if you do consider the 5320 (3x of 250 = $300?), might as well top up $300 more for a real macro lens.
image from a 18-200 lens + close up filter cannot beat a true macro lens. :thumbsup:

 

[ryuggen]

You are right! Thats the pulling factor. If 5320pro doesnt give me a good image quality, then, it wouldnt make sense to invest on it. And normal macro lens will have a filter size of 67mm or below. Thus, I could consider the cheaper alternative of 250 or 3500 series.

I just thought perhaps 5320pro might give me a cheap macro lens on the wide and tele ends:sweat:

There are other options: extension tube and close up filter. Dedicated macro lens didnt cross my mind, as I wanted to shoot in wide and tele ends.

 

[jim_mcgill]

Hi All,

Think there's some misunderstanding on this DCR-5320PRO. It's quite a special lens really.

The price is more affordable than a normal macro lens if your main concern is to save money. But you can also use it on a macro lens in future to make it more "macro". This investment will be put to good use anyway, either with a normal telephoto lens or macro lens.

As for reviews, we're probably the first website in the world to offer a more comprehensive review other than Raynox site.
http://www.mcgill.com.sg/shop/product_info.php?cPath=58&products_id=96

Pictures are taken with the Nikon 18-200VR so that people can decide if they are comfortable with the level of magnification made possible with this lens.

Hope things are clearer now.

Cheers,
Jim, McGill.

 

[dejected]

i've actually done a review on the 3500. hope this little write up can help you

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=255905