a newbies's homework

Just bought that first macro lens? Post here to get helpful feedback and answers to any questions you might have.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

Yawns
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Benavente, Portugal

a newbies's homework

Post by Yawns »

I was reading threads here about Raynox as a tube lens and decided to try it..

House fly (the usual victims... they are always at hand)
RAYNOX AS TUBE... RAYNOX REVERSED

Image

Studio stack
Location: Benavente - Portugal

Camera : Nikon D7000
Objective: Nikon 4X E plan Achromat (Nikon Part # MRP70040)
Other : Raynox 250 (reversed) as "Tube"
Magnification: 2,50 "ish"
Lens Settings: iso 100, speed 1/2 ”, aperture f/4
Stack # : 169 photos - steps of 32 micron (estimated)
Manual rail - Manfrotto 454.
Lighting : 3 cool white (6.000K) led lamps .. 2 on the sides, 1 on top.


Image
YAWNS _ (Y)et (A)nother (W)onderful (N)ewbie (S)hooting

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8580
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

It's obviously working well!

For others:
  • This is a cost-effective setup.
    For a Raynox 150 you'd want about 83mm (208-125) more extension where the helicoid is.
    Some would advise putting extension between the Raynox and the objective. (One can use 52mm or M42mm tubes, with adapters.) There may be a small improvement in quality, with the risk of vignetting (mostly with larger sensors).
The tricky bit can be getting two 52mm male threads together. Did you use a long female thread inside a "xxmm down to 52mm" step ring?
Chris R

boomblurt
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:37 am
Location: Australia

Post by boomblurt »

ebay has suitable adapters (eg http://www.ebay.com/itm/351668583143) ... a bit overpriced but cheaper alternatives do come up.
Geoff

GaryB
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:18 pm

Post by GaryB »

Nice picture!

I see a lot about using the Raynox lenses here and wondered what advantages these have over a standard camera lens as a tube lens. I ask because I have a number of camera lenses which serve the same purpose, so what is it about the Raynox that people prefer? I don't have one so I don't know what the difference is in setup and use but there's obviously something that people like about them.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21214
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

GaryB wrote:so what is it about the Raynox that people prefer?
The word "prefer" may be too strong. Raynox is a known good solution that is not expensive, covers both APS-C and full frame with high quality image, does not vignette, and allows the overall magnification to be adjusted somewhat by changing camera-to-Raynox distance. If you need to buy a tube lens, Raynox is a good option. But if you already have another lens that works well, there is no great advantage to getting a Raynox also.

--Rik

GaryB
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:18 pm

Post by GaryB »

Ah, thanks.

I wasn't sure if the Raynox had some properties that made it more suitable than a camera lens. Still, you're right that it is cheaper and probable a lot less heavy as well as being quite versatile.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4732
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I wonder what people would recommend as the best-quality tube lens for a 10x objective like a Mitu. There are lots of different options discussed in this forum but little consensus.

slophotopro
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:10 pm
Location: Los Osos, ca

Post by slophotopro »

Lou Jost wrote:I wonder what people would recommend as the best-quality tube lens for a 10x objective like a Mitu. There are lots of different options discussed in this forum but little consensus.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 660#123660

This might help.
reversing the lens means you are now working with a flat plane allowing one to get closer with out loosing focus on outer areas.

Looks like you are having fun.

Ron

Yawns
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Benavente, Portugal

Thank you for all the replies...

Post by Yawns »

@ Chris
Did you use a long female thread inside a "xxmm down to 52mm" step ring?

no.. the trick here is my 62mm to CFI.. it was machined by RAFCAMERA (Russia) and it's expensive but very clever adapter.. the 62mm external thread is both MALE and FEMALE.. so the adater can be flipped and used both ways.. If it was a regular adapter with only 62M I wouldn't be able to mount it.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/141997383975?_t ... EBIDX%3AIT

@bloomburt

Thank you for the link.. a 49mm Female / female and a 52mm Female / female rings were ordered (did not arrive yet)

@GaryB
I'm trying the Raynnox, just because I'm curious about to try things I read about here (and if I can afford them)
Just ordered some mineral rocks because of "Ploum" :)

To all the other who added their opinions... thank you
YAWNS _ (Y)et (A)nother (W)onderful (N)ewbie (S)hooting

Online
MarkSturtevant
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by MarkSturtevant »

I think your rig includes the Pixco helicoid extension tube! I just bought one and am looking forward for a little package in the mail. How do you like it?
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters

Getting-Old
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:51 am
Location: Lancashire UK

Post by Getting-Old »

That’s a very sharp photo, well done!

Online
MarkSturtevant
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by MarkSturtevant »

GaryB wrote:Nice picture!

I see a lot about using the Raynox lenses here and wondered what advantages these have over a standard camera lens as a tube lens. I ask because I have a number of camera lenses which serve the same purpose, so what is it about the Raynox that people prefer? I don't have one so I don't know what the difference is in setup and use but there's obviously something that people like about them.
A Raynox is also handy out in the field as a less fussy alternative to switching out lenses or extension tubes. Simply clip on the Raynox to whatever you have on now, and get a boost in magnification. I keep mine in a protective pouch in my front pocket when I am out and about.
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters

microman
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:16 pm

Post by microman »

Great result ! Thanks for sharing setup. I am also interested in that objective but a bit unsure where to buy it since i live in europe. Ebay used prices seems higher than brand new..

Lou Jost
Posts: 4732
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Since this thread has been resuscitated, I'll ask whether the consensus is that the short Raynox should be reversed? I reverse my long one (208mm focal length) but use my short one (125mm focal length) facing forward. My reasons for doing this are lost in the mists of time.....

Lou Jost
Posts: 4732
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Theoretically I suppose they should always be reversed, unless we have data to the contrary. They are meant for their front to be close to the subject and for their back to be facing a lens focussed at or close to infinity.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic