1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Pany 45-200 fitted with Raynox 150, data and pictures.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Dave in Wales, Nov 25, 2011.

  1. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Following on from....https://www.mu-43.com/f38/panasonic-leica-45mm-f-2-8-macro-vs-200mm-raynox-150-some-facts-18545/

    Here is data and pictures shot with a Pany 45-200 with and without a Ranox 150 fitted.

    It is not scienifically accurate but is given as an indication of what is possible when bolting a Raynox onto the front of a zoom.

    Working distances are probable give or take about 6mm, magnification and FOV are give or take a bit as well.

    The pictures are JPG's straight from the camera, NO PP, just resizing not even sharpened.

    D in W

    6399262457_5a8b35a8d3_b.
    Raynox 150 Data-RS by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    200mm NO Raynox 150 fitted.
    6399226733_7a1fc5b679_b.
    P1000386 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    45mm + Raynox 150
    6399226747_50d2052b6f_b.
    P1000393 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    60mm + Raynox 150
    6399226761_44ddf91ee2_b.
    P1000394 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    75mm + Raynox 150
    6399226765_141197cb8e_b.
    P1000396 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    100mm + Raynox 150
    [​IMG]
    P1000398 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    150mm + Raynox 150
    6399262431_26a74b1cc5_b.
    P1000406 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    200mm + Raynox 150
    6399226787_ced108edab_b.
    P1000405 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 11
  2. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    788
    Feb 1, 2010
    Thanks for that, Santa is bringing me a 150 and I already have the 45-200, so macro world here I come! :smile:
     
  3. Redibo

    Redibo Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Dec 29, 2011
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Christoffer
    This is really interesting! Would the 250 have any benefits over the 150 for use with the 45-200? I'm new to photography and even newer to macro, so I'm sorry if this was a stupid question.
     
  4. applemint

    applemint Mu-43 Veteran

    345
    Jan 24, 2012
    I have a 150 not a 250 but went for that option as I was (am) also new to macro and the bigger depth of field and lower magnification of the 150 is easier to use. I have also read that the Raynox 250 is a better option on shorter focal lengths like a 50mm legacy lens and the 150 is better on longer focal length lenses like the Panasonic 45-200 or Olympus 40-150.

    These might help you too:

    New to Macro - Want to try a Raynox but which one? - PentaxForums.com

    Flickr: Discussing Raynox DCR-150 vs DCR-250 - Comparison in RAYNOX DCR250

    I have also used the Raynox 150 with extension tubes and a 50mm legacy lens for extra magnification but you can vary the magnification on a zoom lens of course as per the photos above.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    I've had both, the 250 IMVHO just gives too much magnification, and hence less DOF for everday use, flowers, insects that sort of stuff.
    I found it almost unusable hand-held.
    Images can always be pulled in PP.

    If you want to photograph an insects hat size then try the 250, but it won't be easy.

    Others will have different opinions, this is mine :smile:
     
  6. Nice piece of work!


    I agree about (at least starting with) the 150.

    On the 45-200 on a G3 I use the Raynox 150 and 250 and the Canon 500D (a close-up lens, not the 500d camera!) The 500D is less powerful than the 150 and has a much bigger working distance (12-14 inches or so). The 250 has a smaller working distance than the 150 (4 inches or so).

    All three work nicely with the 45-200.

    However, I started with the 250 (on a Canon superzoom/bridge camera) and I found it really difficult to use. I almost gave up. I learnt to use it, and it was fine, but once I discovered the 150 I used it much more than the 250 (and still do). I also use the 500D quite a lot. The 150 (and even more so the 500D) are easier to use than the 250, but I think which to use depends mainly on how big your subjects are and what sort of composition you like.

    Many (perhaps most) people who do macros seem to like to get as close as possible, and are happy to have just a slice of the subject in focus, for example showing the latticework of a fly's compound eye, or the eyes and mouthparts of a spider. The 250 is quite good for this sort of thing, although perhaps not quite powerful enough on the 45-200 for some people's taste.

    FWIW I tend to try to get as much of my subject in focus as I can, and also like shots of a subject and some of its environment. So I need less magnification.

    I tend to use the 500D (or just the 45-200 by itself depending on the size of the subject and the composition) for flowers and large invertebrates like dragonflies, crane flies, harvestmen and larger butterflies and moths.

    I tend to use the 150 for insects like flies, wasps and beetles, and for spiders and snails.

    I tend to use the 250 for small flies, beetles and spiders. It can also be good for dew drops. I don't find it powerful enough on the 45-200 to get a satisfying picture of really small subjects like springtails.
     
    • Like Like x 4