As it happens I now use a heavy, complicated tripod with an arm that goes out sideways, up, down etc at any angle, the arm coming off a central column that can go up as normal, or down towards the ground. And I use a focus rail too (in a rather crude fashion). Be aware that most people who do macros don't use a focus rail. The reason is (I believe) because of the inflexibility and slowness in use of such a setup. It is much faster to work hand-held. Adding extension tubes to take the lens to 1X forces the lens to focus at a distance that is outside its design which can and will usually causes chromatic and spherical aberrations, vignetting, and effective light loss. To see the increase the effective f-number with an extension tube use the formula: Effective f-stop = nominal f-stop* ( magnification + 1 ).

Though I tested the Raynox 250 for this review, there is also a second conversion lens available from Raynox called the Raynox 150. It has been rated more beginner-friendly due to its more forgiving depth of field. Another point to consider is that, given the limited focus distance, it is best to choose subjects that a) aren’t so small that you won’t be able to get close enough, and b) aren’t so big that their size extends beyond the limits of the frame. With the 55mm and 75mm, I found that the perfect size was around the equivalent of a 25 cent coin – any smaller or bigger and I couldn’t make the composition work. The only exception was if I wanted to capture a small object within its surrounding environment (i.e. a spider in its web) or focus in on a specific area of large object (i.e. the stigma of a flower). E-M1, 1/125, f/ 8, ISO 400 – 75mm with Raynox 250 E-M1, 1/160, f/ 11, ISO 400 – 75mm with Raynox 250 So, I imagine the answer is that yes, you could use the 250 on a prime macro lens, but it may be a bit inflexible in what it lets you do. If you run out of ISO, go into manual and set a fast shutter speed and use RAW to bring out more light in postprocessing.

Features

Being very used to the M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 macro lens, I found the transition to the Raynox 250 quite smooth. Focussing is easy as long as you are at the right working distance, which will vary from lens to lens. (I will cover this topic more below.) The best results can be achieved by using a slow aperture (between f/8 and f/16 is ideal) along with a flash and a sturdy tripod. With a prime macro lens you don't have any lens zoom; you alter the magnification/framing of the picture by altering the distance to the subject. Closer for more magnification, further away for less magnification. In addition to altering the working distance a very small amount, you may be able to alter the magnification/framing of the picture a bit by moving the focus ring (I'm guessing here - if it does work I have no idea how much latitude it would give you or how easy it would be to use.) Focal distance. This is the main reason I wanted to test the Raynox DCR-250. I primarily have used a reversed 50mm lens with extension tubes for macro-photography and have been very happy with the results. But, by using a reversed lens, the focal distance is very short. Comparing two similar magnification levels, the focal distance of a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 with 27.5mm extension tube is 3.0 inches, while the focal distance at 200mm on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D with Raynox filter is 6.1 inches. While three inches doesn't sound like much, when you're dealing with very sketchy insects, the further away the better. Ever try to get close to a dragonfly or butterfly? Those eyes can see you coming.

I imagine that if you put a close-up lens like the 250 on a 100mm prime (or any other non-wide-angle prime) it will work. However, once you have got the image in focus you won't be able to alter the magnification/framing of the picture by using zoom because it is a prime lens. And you won't be able to alter the magnification/framing of the picture (much) by altering the working distance because you will only be able to get sharp focus from a quite narrow range of working distance. Anytime taking close-up photographs and you’re hoping to get close up to a flower the minimum focusing distance is the nearest you will get to the subject and continue to obtain suitable focus. Most probably you are going to experience focus problems because of the minimum focusing distance for that particular lens. The Raynox Macro Lens enables you to focus closer and get inside of a few centemetres of the subject. Raynox lenses offer surprisingly good CA free and sharp image quality, when used as a tube lens. The DCR-150 works great with an infinity-corrected objective designed to be used with a 200mm tube lens. I then find myself asking the question, is it easier to get the subject to find you or do you find the subject. (I think that will be a question for next year due to the weather). You may get quite serious vignetting with the 18-55. If you have a 55-something then you will may get much less vignetting. You may get none. For example, on my micro four thirds Panasonic G3 the 45-200 and 45-175 lenses don't have any vignetting with the Raynox 250 or Raynox 150 but the 14-42 has very serious vignetting (as in "looking through a porthole") at the wide end and the vignetting doesn't completely disappear until more than 30mm. On my APS-C Canon 70D the 55-250 doesn't have any vignetting with the Raynox 250 or 150 but the 18-55 has very serious vignetting at the wide end and the vignetting doesn't completely disappear until about 30mm.

First: One Raynox

With a 70-200mm lens @200mm and Raynox DCR-250 (focal length of DSR-250 is 125 mm, focal length of DSR-150 is 208 mm) Some insects simply move around so much that using a tripod isn't really a runner, for example bees gathering nectar from flowers. Butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies are other subjects that I often have better success with if I work hand-held, although it is more 50/50 as between hand-held and tripod for these, unlike bees which tends to be work handheld or forget it (which is also the case I find for insects in flight). So, using the 150 and 250 on the SX10 I get about the same magnification as you get with them at the wide angle end of your 55-250, and at the telephoto end I get slightly more magnification than you get with them on your 55-250 at full telephoto of 250mm.

Now that I’ve been using it for just over two weeks, I feel I can deliver a pretty fair verdict about this alternative macro solution. Curious to know more? Then let’s keep reading! Design and Build Quality The main problem is the shallow depth of field you get with all macro photography, whatever the lens, so you need a high f/number - like f/11, f/16, f/22. That means you get long shutter speeds, and camera shake. This is made worse by the fact that the high magnification of macro emphasises camera movement, so what you actually need is faster shutter speeds, not longer.Using the 150 on my 45-200mm lens at full zoom of 200mm, I capture a scene about 18mm across, with a working distance of between about 164 to 210mm. When I first started taking macro photos, I bought the M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8, thinking that anything less wasn’t worth the investment. However, having used the Raynox 250 out in the field for two weeks, I’ve come to the realisation that dedicated macro lenses aren’t the be-all and end-all of macro photography. Yes, they are more flexible in that there is no real limit on your working distance and can be used for applications beyond just macro, but they are also much more expensive. Not only is the Raynox far more affordable, but it also allows you to test the extent of your interest in the macro genre. Plus, being so compact, you can carry it with you at all times and snap it onto your lens whenever the appropriate occasion arises. In short, with the Raynox, there isn’t any excuse to miss out on a macro opportunity ever again! Teleconverters are an even worse choice than extension tubes. They are very expensive, the usually create very ugly bokeh,and they increase the effective f-number by an additional factor of whatever their power is, 1.4X or 2X. If you are at an effective f/11 at a 1 : 2 ratio,then adding a 2X teleconverter would push you to 1 : 1 but at a new effective f/22! However, if I use the 150 or 250 on the SX10 I get really bad vignetting at short focal lengths (it is like looking through a porthole). I can use it from a similar (FF) focal length as your 55-250 at its widest angle of 55mm.

Zoom the lens out to infinity. (Or, perhaps, just a little less than infinity - I think I read somewhere that the zoom ring on some lenses will go past the infinity focus point. If this is true, then I suspect that with an add-on lens like the 250, and with the lens ring zoomed right out, you will lose some sharpness.) There is one situation where I use a tripod where the subject/scene always moves faster than I can respond to. This is where light is falling on to a subject (typically a flower), with sunlight coming through gaps in tree foliage up above which is moving in a slight breeze. This can give continually changing illumination on the subject and from time to time can produce really nice effects. But it changes far too fast for me to spot a nice effect and decide to photograph it, even if I have everything lined up and waiting for the right moment. So I take bursts of shots and sort through them later on the PC to see if I captured anything nice. Sometimes it works a treat.

Write Your Own Review

Macro is indeed frustrating, but highly rewarding. It can take a little while for things to start dropping into place - it certainly did for me. I do suggest that as you experiment you keep an open mind and try various approaches. As one example, I know that most people don't use autofocus for macros, but there are some people who do, and for whom indeed macros simply don't work with manual focus. I believe it should work. I have found it vital to get a suitable working distance - the distance between the lens (the front of the 250) and the subject. The Raynox DCR-250 Macro Lens for Sony DSC-RX10 is the most simple and easy cost-effective solution to get going in macro photography, the lens has a universal adapter to fit 52-67mm lenses that have a diameter of between 52mm and 67mm inclusive.