Raynox DCR 250 results anybody?

My next lens purchase will be one of the macros. Not till October though, and in the meantime, I would like to try some alternatives. Yesterday, I almost purchased set of 12,20,36 Kenko tubes, but I've also come across Raynox DCR 250 and seen some excellent results, but most samples did not specify which lens was it used with. Since it fits 52-67mm filter size, and my only lens under 67 is the good old 18-55, I would like to see some results with this set and with other lenses as well or hear your opinion. Or maybe I should skip the Raynox and just get mentioned Kenko set? What will give better results with 18-55 (or any other non macro lens), and also, what will give better results with macro lens, Kenko set or Raynox 250? I would be most grateful for any input.

This Lily Stamen is all I can find at present from my iPad.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ianhatch/479024​5979/

Nice one. Thank you.

Why did you choose Raynox over the other ways to get closer then?

And yes, I know that a good lighting is a must, I have 430 EX II and reverse rings are ordered and on their way.

Mag-1981 wrote in post #16126268
My next lens purchase will be one of the macros. Not till October though, and in the meantime, I would like to try some alternatives. Yesterday, I almost purchased set of 12,20,36 Kenko tubes, but I've also come across Raynox DCR 250 and seen some excellent results, but most samples did not specify which lens was it used with. Since it fits 52-67mm filter size, and my only lens under 67 is the good old 18-55, I would like to see some results with this set and with other lenses as well or hear your opinion. Or maybe I should skip the Raynox and just get mentioned Kenko set? What will give better results with 18-55 (or any other non macro lens), and also, what will give better results with macro lens, Kenko set or Raynox 250? I would be most grateful for any input.

I bought that Kenko set that you've mentioned. And I am satisfied with the results (strictly a newbie talking). But now I am thinking if a more prudent approach would have been to get the cheaper Canon 100mm macro lens. I do like the combo of the Kenko plus my 70-200 f4 lens. On the other hand I am also thinking of getting the Raynox for my P&S SX40.

To be on topic, I guess what I am trying to say is that i have no buyers remorse getting the Kenko tube set

Canajun wrote in post #16126421
I bought that Kenko set that you've mentioned. And I am satisfied with the results (strictly a newbie talking). But now I am thinking if a more prudent approach would have been to get the cheaper Canon 100mm macro lens. I do like the combo of the Kenko plus my 70-200 f4 lens. On the other hand I am also thinking of getting the Raynox for my P&S SX40.

To be on topic, I guess what I am trying to say is that i have no buyers remorse getting the Kenko tube set

Thank you.
I haven't found straight comparison between these two. What confuses me, is that most of the results I've found from Raynox, seem to be better than those from Kenko tubes, while theoretically it really should be the other way round, considering the fact, that extension tubes don't consist any glass, while Raynox is a lens.

I have used Raynox 250, it work good on 100mm macro and my other lens. I have try with 40mm pancake, but don't like it on 18-55 kit lens. Raynox advantage is ease of use than kenko tube, but kenko tube will not effect IQ.
Below are sample 100macro with Raynox.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tat3406/8688404​613/

Mag-1981 wrote in post #16126372
Nice one. Thank you.

Why did you choose Raynox over the other ways to get closer then?

And yes, I know that a good lighting is a must, I have 430 EX II and reverse rings are ordered and on their way.

Sorry only just noticed your reply.
I suppose I chose the Raynox because it was a cheap option. I bought it second hand after seeing some superb examples of what it could do on Flickr. The water droplet wasn't visible to my naked eye when I took that shot, I only saw it when processing later on.
I haven't really tried it on any critters, I found it quite tricky to set up quickly so haven't used it for a while, but no doubt it can get good results, its just extreme macro wasn't for me........

I never owned the DCR250 but had the DCR150 and used it a lot to reduce the minimum focus distance on my 18-55 kit lens but would never really consider it Macro. Although I had great fun with it on my 55-250mm is lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://bjonesphotograp​hy.co.uk …-150-macro-diopter-review

I have a Raynox DCR-150 & love it. I've only briefly played with extension tubes, but I found the Raynox so much easier to use. I use my Raynox on my 55-250 IS. Something to consider, with the Raynox you get more magnification with longer focal lengths. With extension tubes, you get more with wider angles.

I don't think I ever tried my Raynox on my kit lens, but I did on my 50mm the night I got it.

This is what the Raynox DCR 150 does at 50mm:

I just received this lens Friday… This is my very first macro image utilizing the 250..

@-AP-, smallpotatoes, llareggub, h14nha, tat3406: It's been a while, but thank you all for your contribution . Following your advices and looking at all your great photos, I bought the Raynox and I could not have been happier with the results. Many thanks. @Canajun, did you get it, and if so, what do you think about it?

Do you have any shots that you could share. Mag?