Raynox MSN 202 or Raynox DCR 250?

[itBurns]

I know quite a few people on here have Raynox Macro attach-lenses, but am confused what exactly I am looking for. (Being new to photography in general doesn't help my case)

In the long run, I may pick up a Nikkor 40mm Micro Macro lens, but for now, trying to go the cheaper route to at least enter into some macro photography. My friend who is a fellow photographer does a lot of macro shooting, so I figured I'd at least like the ability to try it out.

So, what is the real differences between the MSN 202 and the DCR 250? (They seem to be within $10 of each other). I hear the 250 is an 8+ while the 202 is a 25+. Not sure what this actually means, and which one would suite me.

Right now I have the standard 18-55mm AF-S VR lens, and ordering a 55-200mm AF-S VR lens.

Thanks for the help

 

[Overread]

The + rating of the close up lens attachments is its diopter power and essentially the higher the number the more powerful its magnification effect is. The DCR250 is generally the best starting point for getting a good level of magnification, whilst the MSN 202 is getting more serious and can prove to be much more challenging for a first time user.

As two additional points to consider:

1) Lenses - I wouldn't personally go for a 40mm macro lens as your main starting macro lens. I own and use a 35mm macro and its a big challenge if you want to get the full magnified photos because the distance from lens to subject is tiny, not only making it harder to get into position but also meaning that you're likely overshadowing your subject so lighting is a harder topic.
I'd go for a 60mm at the shortest and if wanting to work with insects 90mm (Tamron make a good 90mm macro).

2) Extension tubes; these work similar to the close up lens attachments that you are looking at, however they give more magnification per unit of length when used on shorter focal length lenses; as compared to the close up lens attachments which give more magnification (per diopter power unit) on longer focal length lenses. If you wanted to use the tubes with your 18-55mm a full set of Kenko AF extension tubes in Nikon fit would get you to just over 1:1 magnification at the 55mmm mark (1:1 being what true macro lenses get to at their closest focusing distance).
Unfortunately I've never found/remember the formula for close up lens attachments and magnifiaction power so I can't directly compare what the DCR250 would give you on your lenses; so the choice is up to you.


As a personal note my DCR250 gets more use than tubes, even on shorter lenses* simply because its so quick to slip on and off the setup.

*my shorter lenses are currently mostly all macro lenses as well so I'm working with a higher base magnification to start with

 

[cgipson1]

I have the DCR-250.... and love it. But it does significantly cut down the DOF for macro shooting, which is minimal anyway with normal macro lenses. For someone just starting out.. try the DCR-250 on your lens at 55mm.. it will take excellent macro shots. Or as Overread mentioned... get the Kenko tubes and use those. If you pick up a cheap used 35mm or 50mm... that is even a better choice with the tubes or the DCR-250.

The MSN202, while very powerful... will have such minimal depth of field, that without a significant amount of practice, and a tripod with a macro rail, you will have major trouble getting any worthwhile shots..

 

[itBurns]

Thanks for the help guys!

I will look into the tubes, but as of now think I'll get the DCR-250 to start. Also Overread, thanks for the tips on the macro lens. I was looking at the Tamron 90mm, and will just save up a little longer when the time comes and get that if I decide to advance further into macro photography