1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Macro Coverter worth it??

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by nuclearboy, Apr 12, 2013.

  1. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    Ellicott City, MD
    Chris
  2. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    334
    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    Dan
    I don't use this particular converter, but I have used them in the past. It will essentially just allow you to get closer to your subject than just a lens will. It looks to provide almost 1:1 magnification, so life size. It is a very cheap way to get into macro. It makes you use the same focusing techniques as a macro lens. If you have never done real macro work before I would say for $40 it is worth a try. If you want an even cheaper alternative, since it is only 1 element, a set of macro filters for about $20 would provide almost the same results.
     
  3. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    Ellicott City, MD
    Chris
    Thanks,

    For $40 it might be easy enough to try.

    Thanks for mentioning the macro filters. I do have an old set stocked away. I will have to check the thread diameters and maybe get a step up ring for those.
     
  4. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    I didn't really like the results I got with converters (Raynox something-or-others ...), but a lot of people use them with good results. I figured I'd offer up some other, even cheaper alternatives you could consider: reverse lens mounts and macro tube extensions.

    For around $9 you can get a reverse lens mount, and for around $12 you can get a set of macro extension tubes. Like converters they have their fans and their detractors and their plusses and minuses regarding usage and results of course, but - hey - the best option is always more options, imo! :smile:
     
  5. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    651
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    I've not used this one but I've used others...
    Basically these converters are just magnifying glass for the lens.
    Bad ones like the old ones I have for 30 years ago are prone to all sorts of aberrations.
    I'd expect this to be a reasonable achromatic doublet, which should give good results, but the description of 'one lens' suggests otherwise. I'd also expect the specs. to include the lens strength in diopters

    Personally I usually prefer just using a reversed prime lens directly in front of the lens on my camera. (I've usually got a old 50mm prime handy).

    Though if I ever see a large low power close up filter (86mm & about +0.8 sounds ideal) I'd be tempted to get it to allow my Bigmos to focus within 5m...
     
  6. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    This macro converter is not an achromatic doublet, just a single lens. We had a discussion about macro converters sometime ago, and IIRC, the magnification of this converter is only about 1-1.5 diopters, so it would work better with a lens longer than the kit 14-42.

    I have a Raynox DCR-150, which *is*an achromat and magnifies by 4.8 diopters. The DCR-250 magnifies by 8 diopters for much more extreme magnification.

    I find the DCR-150 works very well on the Oly 40-150mm zoom. I'd go for the DCR-250 if I were going to use it on the 14-42mm zoom.

    DCR-150 Macro conversion lens for D-SLR camera

    DCR-250 Super Macro conversion lens for D-SLR camera
     
  7. johnsigs

    johnsigs Mu-43 Regular

    Hi i just received one,i was able to adapt it on my Olympus 45mm 1:8, it gets me a few inches closer . the few that i took seem sharp
     
  8. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sam
    Macro converters are a hit and miss. I've seen some good results with them, but mostly from bridge cameras that have crazy zooms. 100% crops from converters leave alot to be desired IMHO. I have the raynox 250. Ive used it on my 100-300mm and 14-150mm zooms, but it cant compete with my 60mm olympus macro or my Vivitar 100mm macro. Even if you are just curious about macro work, you owe it to yourself to get a proper macro lens. Scour the buy and sell forums here or ebay for legacy macros. Some very good ones could be had for less than 200 bux. I know its not that cheap, but some of these legacy macro lenses like the Kiron/vivitar/lester a dine... 105mm or the "Bokina" will give you optics that rival most native long lenses out there.
     
  9. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    621
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    Based on the published maximum focusing distance, this "converter" (a "close-up lens" is the more conventional term) is very close to +2 diopters.
     
  10. arch stanton

    arch stanton Mu-43 Veteran

    411
    Feb 25, 2012
    London
    Malc
    Hi Chris, this is with a Raynox 150 mounted on an OM 100/2.8:
    521861_10151644786277176_1865132163_n.
    It's been through lightroom but I'm happy with it for the price!
     
  11. suntoryjim

    suntoryjim Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Feb 6, 2013
    Very happy with the results I'm getting from the Raynox DCR-250. It reduced the minimum focus distance of my Sigma 30 F2.8 from 11 inches to just under 3.5 inches.

    If the Sigma 60 F2.8 is as affordable as their 19 and 30, then combined with the DCR-250, it would be an excellent budget alternative to a dedicated macro lens.

    JPG straight out of camera, EPL5 ISO3200 1/40 F5.6.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    334
    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    Dan
    Posted this elsewhere, but since people are touting the Raynox, I might as well add mine to the mix.

    This was taken with a Canon Rebel + 90mm Tamron + Raynox 250
     

    Attached Files: