I ended up rewriting this post a few times and added something new to the content each time. At first I planned to touch only on the Raynox units, but then the close-up filter topic broadened, and I decided to cover everything at once.
As I mentioned before, it all started with the Tamron 90mm lens. After I bought it, I said, “Now I can shoot macro,” closed the chapter, and for a long time thought I had my needs covered. A few years passed before I heard about Raynox, and in that time I used the 90mm more as a portrait lens than for macro. When I learned that I could increase a lens’s magnification with small add-ons, I immediately started researching. Everyone was talking about Raynox, and the photos I saw were truly exciting. That’s how I met the DCR-250. After the Tamron 90, it would be the first thing I bought for macro and then the piece of gear I used the most.
Before moving on to the Raynox units, I want to give some general information about close-up filters.
Macro close-up filter
These are tools we all know as a concept but perhaps few of us have used or tested. When we want to shoot closer than our lens allows, we have a few options. Extension tubes are the first method that comes to mind, but as focal length increases you’d need very long tubes, so on telephoto lenses, using a close-up filter instead of a tube becomes a good option. Close-up filters, which act like magnifying glasses, are named by their power: +1, +2, +3, and so on. By choosing the appropriate strength and screwing it onto the lens’s filter thread, we can shoot from closer.
Diopter
Close-up filters create different magnification on every lens.
While we’re at +1, +2, +3, let’s explain what that is. It definitely does not mean 2×, 3×, 4×. A close-up filter does not carry a 2× value like a teleconverter. I see misleading ads presented this way. Raynox itself even printed “4X” on the MSN-202. These are not correct, keep that in mind. Filters produce different magnification depending on the optical characteristics of the lens we pair them with.
Back to diopter: this number that expresses a lens’s optical power is simply another way of stating the focusing distance. In formula terms we can say 1/f. So a +2 close-up filter focuses at 1/2 meter = 50 cm. For +5, focusing will be at 1/5 meter = 20 cm. The prescription of the glasses we use is also given this way. When we say “My eyesight is off by 0.5,” we’re actually saying we need a lens of 0.5 diopters. Depending on magnifying or reducing, diopter takes negative or positive values.
Using diopter instead of focus distance has a practical advantage. If we stack two lenses, we simply add their diopter values to figure out how they’ll behave together. That is, when +1 and +2 close-up filters are used together, they’ll behave roughly like a +3 filter. In this way, close-up filters can be stacked. But rather than using +1 and +2 together, I prefer a single +3. As you stack, sharpness will decrease due to issues like reduced transmission and internal reflections.
How effective is a close-up filter?
I can’t answer this without testing, because the effect changes depending on the lens we use. And it’s not just about focal length. For example, we can’t say all 50mm lenses will yield the same magnification, because each lens has a different minimum focus distance. So we’ll see by trying.
Because the magnification potential is higher, I’m choosing to test with telephoto lenses. I’ll test with the Tamron 90mm and the Pentax K 135mm f/2.5. The filters I have are made for lenses with 52mm threads. But that’s no problem; with step-up/down adapters we can easily use them on both lenses.
Using the Tamron 90mm with close-up filters
When calculating magnification values, I use shots taken on graph paper. I compute magnification in the new photos by comparing pixel dimensions to a photo shot at 1× with the Tamron 90mm. For accuracy, I calculate directly using pixel counts.
In everyday shooting, a rough estimate is enough. To make this easier, I marked different magnification values on the same sheet. Your sensor size matters when making these marks. If you know your camera’s sensor dimension, a line you draw of the same length is your 1× line. If, looking through the viewfinder, that line just fills the frame, you’re at 1× magnification. Similarly, you can draw lines for different magnifications by proportion. That’s what I do.
When using close-up filters, after using +1, +2, and +3 separately, I’ll also stack them all to test the +6 value I get. As I said, these can be used stacked.
I’m not giving sample photos for the Tamron 90, because they all yielded very similar results. The magnifications obtained in use are as follows:
| Equipment | Magnification |
| Tamron 90mm | 1× |
| Tamron 90mm + 1 close-up | 1.07× |
| Tamron 90mm + 2 close-up | 1.17× |
| Tamron 90mm + 3 close-up | 1.26× |
| Tamron 90mm + 1 + 2 + 3 close-up | 1.47× |
As you can see, the difference isn’t big. Since the Tamron 90mm is a macro lens, it already focuses close and gives 1× magnification. The close-up filters increased this a bit. But the difference gained isn’t worth the loss in quality. If our goal is only this amount of increase, using the Tamron 90 with an extension tube makes more sense.
Using the Pentax SMC K 135mm f/2.5 with close-up filters
On this lens, a close-up filter will make a more significant change. I can say that without testing. On everyday lenses, helper macro accessories make a big difference. But everyday lenses often aren’t suitable for macro. We need to be mindful of that. Start with a sharp lens.
First let’s test the bare lens. From the minimum focus distance of 1.5 m, a full-frame shot on the 135mm results as follows.
When we attach a close-up filter, we see a dramatic change. Here are the photos we obtained at +1, +2, +3, and finally +6 (all stacked), in order:
Not bad at all for a lens not designed for macro. These are single shots—no focus stacking was applied. That’s why depth of field decreases as magnification increases. When evaluating, we need to judge by the area that’s in focus. The first shots are good, but especially in the last photo, using three filters stacked has taken away some sharpness. Modern filters will give better results; the ones I had were quite old.
Next up are the Raynox units. They benefit from modern tech. Before examining them in detail, let’s do a comparison on the same lens and the same test subject. We’ll mount the Raynox DCR-250 on our lens.
If we gather the magnification values obtained with the Pentax 135mm in a table, we get this result:
| Equipment | Magnification |
| K135 | 0.11× |
| K135 + 1 Close-up | 0.25× |
| K135 + 2 Close-up | 0.40× |
| K135 + 3 Close-up | 0.57× |
| K135 + 6 Close-up | 0.96× |
| K135 + DCR-250 | 1.32× |
The Raynox delivered higher magnification with a much sharper result. To show detail from both photos, I’m putting crops side by side. The Soligor looked good at +1 and +2, but at +3 and +6 it didn’t deliver. The Soligor +6 (all three stacked) on the left is a disaster not only in terms of sharpness but also CA color fringing. Red–purple halos have ruined high-contrast areas. The Raynox DCR-250 on the right, with +8 diopters, is very successful in both sharpness and color.
Raynox close-up add-ons
To recap, two features stand out when choosing a close-up filter:
- What it adds in terms of increasing magnification.
- How much it harms image quality.
You can estimate magnification from the diopter value. Image sharpness relates to the product’s overall quality and the presence of modern coatings. Raynox has earned a well-deserved reputation in the market on this front. At the same time, their prices are reasonable. They can be had for around $75, which is appreciated.
Raynox has four different filter models for macro purposes. Among them, the MSN-505, with 32 diopters, gives the highest magnification, but unfortunately I haven’t had a chance to test it yet. The DCR-150 is the lowest magnification model; since its 4.8 diopters seemed a bit mild to me, I haven’t been interested yet. The ones I have are the DCR-250, which I’ve liked and used for a long time, and the MSN-202, which my friend Adnan Demir kindly sent me to test. Thank you, Adnan.
Raynox filters can mount directly to filter threads. But their diameters are a bit small, so they come with an adapter. With this adapter, they can be used on lenses with a wide range of different filter sizes. If we want, we can use our own step adapters instead of the supplied adapter.
Now let’s look at the DCR-250 and MSN-202 in detail.
Raynox DCR-250
With +8 diopters, the DCR-250 is the most preferred and most widely usable model. It’s particularly an add-on that can be used for hand-held shooting. It doesn’t push magnification excessively; depth of field remains at a level where hand-held is possible. When 1× isn’t enough and we want to go a bit over it, it comes to the rescue. We can shoot macro with almost all the lenses we have by using it.
The DCR-250 has filter threads on both sides. The rear is 43mm and the front is slightly wider at 49mm. That means you can also attach other 49mm filters on top of the DCR-250.
To include a few samples:
Raynox MSN-202
With +25 diopters, the MSN-202 promises high magnification. It’s not very suitable for hand-held shots because depth of field will be extremely thin. Focus stacking definitely becomes a necessity with this filter. The MSN-202 has a 37mm filter thread only on the rear. You can’t add another filter in front. Given its small size, that might be why. If you insist on stacking filters, the MSN-202 needs to go on top.
Let’s jump to the tests. For the Raynox tests, to interpret results correctly I applied focus stacking to achieve full depth of field. To give a clearer idea, I didn’t edit the photos. No Photoshop intervention or cropping—just as they came out of the camera. For lighting I used continuous light: two Ikea Jansjö LED lamps. As a diffuser I used a paper cup. Our lens is the Tamron 90mm. First, let’s see what we get with the bare lens:
For this small dead insect glued to a pin, 1× magnification is insufficient. We can’t see much detail. We need to try again with the DCR-250.
1.7× is a great value. We get detail, and it’s very easy to use. It’s a magnification I constantly use hand-held. The photo is very successful in terms of sharpness. The Raynox has no visible side effects. With the MSN-202, we get 3.16× magnification.
Comparing the two in terms of sharpness, both lenses are very successful in the center. They show us a lot of detail. In the edges, however, the MSN-202 is quite soft. With the DCR-250, edge loss isn’t as pronounced. You can see it immediately in the detail crops below.
This behavior at the edges doesn’t make the MSN-202 a bad filter. Since the most important areas are usually in the center, as you can see from the examples, it’s not right to call the resulting photos bad. But it’s not an easy lens to use either. With the Tamron 90mm, we’re shooting from a very close distance like 1.5–2 cm. For lighting, you need to work a bit to prevent the area directly in front of the lens from falling into shadow.
Afterward, of course, I did a test by using the DCR-250 and MSN-202 together. Adding the diopters, we expect a value like 8 + 25 = 33. That should correspond to roughly a 32% increase in magnification. But theory and practice don’t match again. When I used both together, I got only a 5% increase over the MSN-202 alone. That gain isn’t worth the losses of dual filtering. I’m removing this option from the plan.
So what do we get if we try them on everyday lenses?
I tried the MSN-202 with a 135mm lens. But magnification was so high and depth of field so thin that sensitivity to vibration exceeded what the Pentax K-x body could handle. I couldn’t get sharp photos. With flash or with a suitable body—i.e., models that have the EFSC feature found on some mirrorless cameras and some Canon models—these shots could have been done. I put the 135mm aside and continued with my more modest Pentax SMC M 50mm.
It’s nice to see that with the 50mm lenses most of us have, we can do macro shooting at this level 🙂 Of course it’s possible to get the same photo using reverse mounting and tubes. But with an add-on like the MSN-202, you get a very light and compact solution, and at the same time you can apply it to tele lenses to reach very high magnifications.
Using an enlarger lens with the Raynox DCR-250
Now to enlarger lenses… By the way, this post has gotten quite long, but as I said, I wanted to cover everything at once.
We use enlarger lenses reversed. In that case, where does the Raynox go? For enlarger lenses with an M39 mount, I could solve this with a 43mm–37mm step-down ring. But to avoid breaking down the rig and to try something different, I’m choosing to reverse the Raynox and mount it on the inside. It’ll be an odd connection and will need many pieces.
- A hood made from an M39 extension tube on the very front
- A reversed Rodagon WA 40mm enlarger lens
- 40.5mm to 49mm step ring
- 49mm to 43mm step ring
- Raynox DCR-250 (reversed)
- 49mm to PK bayonet reverse-mount adapter
When we screw everything together, we get a peculiar lens that looks nice, as you see next to it. To reduce internal reflections and obtain a sharp image, I use matte black, ring-shaped light-absorbing material inside the outer M39 hood and inside the 40.5–49mm step ring. These have visibly positive effects. I have no idea how the new optical layout created by combining with the Raynox like this will behave. I move on to the tests with curiosity.
The lenses are mounted on a bellows. To keep magnification at the lowest level, I closed the bellows fully for the first shot.
It yields a pretty solid magnification: 3.1×. This value is usable for many studio works. The already very sharp Rodagon WA 40mm gets along well with the Raynox. Loss of detail isn’t much felt. Now I need to fully extend the bellows and shoot again. Let’s see what magnification we’ll reach.
Magnification went up to 6×. At these levels we should really be moving to microscope objectives. Because we’re pushing the limits a bit, there’s some loss of detail. Lighting has also become much more challenging. Again we’re shooting from just a few centimeters. Thankfully, there’s no CA. I think the resulting photo is quite acceptable.
If I have to draw a conclusion: the Raynox DCR-250 is a fantastic add-on. If I lost or damaged it, I’d buy another immediately. The MSN-202, while very good, falls outside my personal use cases. My gear range is broad and I use other solutions for higher magnifications. But it’s a product with a wide range of uses that I can readily recommend.
You can order the Raynox units directly from Amazon. They arrive quickly. When I bought mine, the price was better than in Turkey.
Note: There are a few other use cases for the Raynox units (especially the DCR-150 and DCR-250) that I didn’t cover here. For example, on infinity-type microscope objectives, they simply and nicely solve the tube-lens requirement that we normally meet with a 200mm lens. We’ll be looking into that together as well.
