Will a Raynox 250 attach to a twin flash unit?

I think I would have to put a 62-43 step down ring on the end of the Venus lens, and screw the Raynox into the the 43 thread.

Then onto the front of the Raynox screw a 49-67 step up.

Then the flash holder which clips on my 67 now would go onto that.

It would be really a PITA to remove the flash, then the Raynox, then re-screw the 62-67 back on to use just the Venus... and vice-versa to go onto the Raynox for a bit of extra magnification...

Paul.

Yea, my rig gets rid of the front lens mount altogether you still have to deal with it on your rig.

The Raynox has a clip on style that fits up to 67mm. It doesn’t actually thread on to your lens. You might be able to put a step up ring to the Raynox then mount your flash, but I’m not sure the Raynox would support the weight. The clip on style of the Raynox is not very secure. It’s more than enough to hold the weight of the Raynox, but I wouldn’t trust it to hold any additional weight.

Paul Iddon wrote in post #19212583
I think I would have to put a 62-43 step down ring on the end of the Venus lens, and screw the Raynox into the the 43 thread.

Then onto the front of the Raynox screw a 49-67 step up.

Then the flash holder which clips on my 67 now would go onto that.

It would be really a PITA to remove the flash, then the Raynox, then re-screw the 62-67 back on to use just the Venus... and vice-versa to go onto the Raynox for a bit of extra magnification...

Paul.

I have the Raynox 250 and have used it on my Canon 100mm L to get more magnification. Like you, I don't use the clip thingy that comes with the lens, and instead use the 43mm thread on the back of the Raynox to attach it to the lens with adapter rings.

I get pretty good sharpness with this.

It is fun to experiment with flash and diffusers. There are many solutions. I have fashioned different cone-shaped diffusers that attach to the lens with elastic bands, and then aim a camera-mounted flash to it, usually with a snoot.

While the Raynox is fun and gives good quality results, I have gone back to using extension tubes because it works a bit better with focusing.

Not sure if you know about this site that has Raynox info plus a calculator.
http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

Wilt wrote in post #19212396
I see you have a 70D...I see no point in using an optically degrading close up lens rather than putting your existing lens on an extension tube. ...

Wilt, the "degrading" of the closeup lens appears to be minimal. Note that using extension tubes also degrades the image quality because it places the lens at a focusing distance for which it was not designed.

Paul Iddon wrote in post #19212541
62mm.

So you would need a reducing ring to take your 62mm threads down to the 49mm needed by the Raynox...13mm of the front of your optics will not be gatherng light from the Raynox. That does not intuitively sound good for image formation...vignetting​?!

To match the magnification claims of the Raynox (2.5x) you need a 62mm tread diameter close-up lens with 6 diopter strength.

( 6 diopter / 4) +1 = 1.5+1 = 2.5X

Archibald wrote in post #19212642
Wilt, the "degrading" of the closeup lens appears to be minimal. Note that using extension tubes also degrades the image quality because it places the lens at a focusing distance for which it was not designed.

That is good to hear. I dug a bit more into the Raynox, and optically the Raynox is pretty sophisticated...the typical close-up filter is one element; Nikon and Canon both sell 2-element close-up lenses, and Raynox is a 3-element formula.

Wilt wrote in post #19212648
So you would need a reducing ring to take your 62mm threads down to the 49mm needed by the Raynox...13mm of the front of your optics will not be gatherng light from the Raynox. That does not intuitively sound good for image formation...vignetting​?!

To match the magnification claims of the Raynox (2.5x) you need a 62mm tread diameter close-up lens with 6 diopter strength.

( 6 diopter / 4) +1 = 1.5+1 = 2.5X

Just because the Laowa filter thread is 62mm does not mean the entrance pupil is 62mm!

My Canon 100mm has a filter thread of 67mm. I don't get any vignetting with the Raynox at my shooting conditions.

For OP benefit, it is good to learn that vignetting isn't a big issue, as I had questioned. Thx

Whether the Raynox will vignette or not depends on several things. Obviously one of those is how far from the front element you mount the auxiliary lens. That distance can be more than you want depending on how many adapter rings you need to use. Another factor is the aperture used.

I shot mostly handheld and at f/11, a reasonable compromise when shooting between 1 and 2 X. But if you go higher than about 2X, you run into the twin limitations of very shallow DOF and diffraction softening. You can overcome these issues by shooting at a wider aperture, and focus stacking. At 5X, you might want to shoot at f/4 (as marked on the lens). And at that wider aperture, you need to check for vignetting.

Paul Iddon wrote in post #19212140
I have the Yongnuo twin flash YN24EX and I wondered if the Raynox 250 would attach to the unit?

Paul.

The Canon twin flash has a filter thread on the head to lens bracket, check the YN24EX.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19214026
The Canon twin flash has a filter thread on the head to lens bracket, check the YN24EX.

Cheers Lester.

There is no thread on the attachment like that, it is smooth on the inside space.

Paul.

thomas-b wrote in post #19212488
I don't have an answer for whether the Raynox will fit with your twin flash. I just wanted to mention that the reduction in image quality from using the Raynox filter is negligible. I've been using it for a while now and have been very happy with it. I would not consider it optically degrading.

Gonna necro an old post, and thread, to put out my .02 for what it is worth...

There are two undercurrents in this thread that I want to address:

1) Adding glass to a lens degrades image quality -false. Adding low grade glass will, but you get what you pay for and if the quality of the glass is high the "image degradation" is minimal to nonexistent.

2) Adding extension tubes to a lens does not degrade image quality (the "it is just an air gap" argument) -false. A lens is designed to create a sharp image circle at a fixed distance from the image plane. Increase that distance with tubes and "image quality" can suffer. People think that Canon's MP-E 65mm is less diffraction prone, but in reality it has a floating lens group that corrects the focus as the mag changes. There is a synergistic relationship between diffraction, lens sharpness, and motion and not all detail loss in macro is just due to diffraction alone. I would also argue that the quality of the light that you are shooting with can rob you of more detail than diffraction.

I put "image degradation" and "image quality" in quotes because absolute image sharpness is a false metric that has nothing to do with image quality. No one views images at 100% pixels, takes a crop at that view, and then saves those crops to a device as wallpaper or prints them. Everyone consumes images by looking at them edge to edge. If you cannot get someone interested in the thumbnail view that most sites generate then odds are they will not even click on it to see your photo...