Anyone tried before?
1) Mounting a Raynox DCR250 directly
2) Reverse mount a 50 1.8 in front of the lens
Which would be better in terms of working distance, maximum magnification and image quality?
Anyone tried before?
1) Mounting a Raynox DCR250 directly
2) Reverse mount a 50 1.8 in front of the lens
Which would be better in terms of working distance, maximum magnification and image quality?
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.
Tried both. I like the Raynox DCR250 better.
Anyone tried before?
1) Mounting a Raynox DCR250 directly
2) Reverse mount a 50 1.8 in front of the lens
Which would be better in terms of working distance, maximum magnification and image quality?
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
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?
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.