Yes telephotos lens can be used as a almost a macro lens too, but with more problems.
My solution was using a Raynox, extensions of lenses that can modify the minimum focusing distance. The Raynox 150 is probably the best for telephoto lenses because it gives you a minimum focusing distance of around 30cm. Never buy the Raynox 250 for a telephoto, i made that mistake 
Have you heard of the Raynox macro clip on lens?
Would you believe this was taken with the Nikon P950 (with a Raynox on)?
I got my 950 used two years ago and it’s my goto for a travel camera. With the Raynox, I can fill the frame at 4mm, switch in a few seconds to bird (2000mm equiv) or, shoot the moon. A lot smaller than the P1000 and a lot easier to tote about.
Another nice thing about the ‘bridge’ fixed lens choice is no more worries about losing, carrying, or changing lenses in the field.
Amazing! After consulting with a neighbor who has a Nikon, it seems like I may be leaning a bit towards it! So does the Raynox fit on other cameras, or is it just for Nikon? And is it added on to the lens that is already attached? Sorry, I’m new to removable lens; both cameras I have have fixed lens!
Hello.
Raynox lenses can fit on some lenses and cameras, they have a universal adapter that allows them to fit any lens thread. In my case, my Raynox adapter seems to fit threads with a diameter of 67 to 43mm. So, if you have a camera or lens with a thread between 67 and 43mm, the Raynox will fit perfectly.
Even so, I’m not sure what the actual thread range is, nor do I know if there are adapters for larger or smaller threads. I hope I’ve made myself clear.
So you just have to care about the Lens diameter, if it says: 55Ø | 57Ø | 60Ø | 65Ø | 50.3Ø | 53,7Ø it should be possible to install the Raynox in that with the adapter. While it’s within the range, which I clarify again, it’s not very clear to me if it’s the same for everyone, or if it’s the same model, so it’s best if you look for this information the place you are going to buy.
The Raynox macroscopic lenses (there are two models, M-150 and M-250) have a 49mm filter screw base. They ship with a clip adapter that has a 49mm thread that you simply squeeze two side tabs to click on to any camera lens with a filter ring diameter of 52mm to 67mm. Though I would be leery of the extremes of that range. Too close to 52 and it could be very tight to put in and take off. Too close to 67, and loose enough for a small branch collision to send it flying.
If the lens you’re putting it on is outside of that range, you’ll need to find a filter thread adapter to bring it into clipable range.
There’s nothing other than the lens (no aperture or electronics) so it’s very flexible between brands and models, though they do recommend them for lenses of 200mm FL or more. And aside from the usual scratches worry, if you take care of it, this is an investment you can take to a whole bunch of cameras for years to come.
It fits easily into your back pocket, even with the adapter on it. If I’m birding with the Nikon and see a great bug opportunity, it’s like a 3 sec operation to reach back into that pocket and then clip it on.
A note about the adapter: it works, but it’s also incredibly easy to break the tabs that hold it to the camera. They’re just thin plastic. They sell replacements but I really wish they’d improve on this.
The lens itself has excellent optics. I even keep it on hand when using my ‘main’ macro camera, a Sony 6300 with a 2X 100mm Laowa on it. This gives me about a 25-30 percent magnification ‘boost’ for the most tiny bugs.
The other thing about the Raynox is vignetting. The larger the diameter of the lens that you’re clipping to, the more likely you’re going to get vignetting. How much is hard to tell. With the Laowa at 67mm filter diam, there’s no vignetting at all with the Raynox, all through it’s range (which goes to infinity). But with my Nikon P950, also a 67mm width, there is a fair bit of vignetting (that disappears when the frame width is roughly 10mm wide, or at the 500mm zoom level). A lot depends on the internal optics of the camera lenses, as that demonstrates. The camera-to-subject distance is decent too. About 4 inches on average.
The first camera I used the Raynox on was an old (used) Canon Powershot and it worked great! I consider that my first step into ‘real’ macro. (I still have an old sample page up from that if you’re interested). I’ve also used it on other ‘super-zoom’ brands and camera models and it worked well on all of them.
As for the Nikon P950 compared to other choices,
here’s a brief breakdown on strengths and weaknesses:
PLUS: It’s an amazingly compact/lightweight zoom range package.
MINUS: compared to most modern DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, you’re working with a lot less pixels on the sensor. 6000x4000. 24 megapixels. About half the number of most newer cameras.
But plenty to still get good quality, printable results. And for iNat purposes: about four times the maximum submission size so you CAN still shoot a little backed out and crop to ‘gain’ screen magnification without detail loss. Another factor is the sensor size itself. It’s about the size of the sensor in your phone.
That’s how they ‘shrunk’ the superzoom power. The smaller the target sensor, the smaller your zoom lens needs to be. BUT, also the more problems it has with things like low-light noise levels AND (important for macro work) the more ‘blooming’ you will get when you push the zoom too far and the light starts to diffract against those tiny sensor pixels. My response? It’s worth putting up with if it means you have a camera where you don’t need to lug a tripod along with or a massive (expensive) lenses. Smaller camera: longer hikes. At least, for me. And longer hikes = more shots = more chances of catching something decent.
PLUS: RAW output option. Not all bridge cameras (not the older ones, anyhow) have this. Why is that important? For me, it means I can use my workshop full of photo software to recover good shots from weak exposures and more importantly, it allows me to go into the higher ISO range without too much concern about the noise I’m seeing on the camera, as the RAW processing software (I use PureRaw) will almost completely eleminate the noise and give me the detail I can’t even see. Example? How about this one?
PLUS: quite decent on battery life. Batteries (even third-party ones) typically are good for a couple hundred of shots, and are relatively inexpensive and small enough to shove into a pant pocket.
PLUS and MINUS: Autofocus. It’s not gonna win against a new full-sized sensor camera when it comes to tracking modes, options, and speed. But hey, that’s another one of those things you have to decide whether it’s worth it or not. Do you shoot a lot of BIFs? I find for the P950, it’s easier to use the 4K video mode at high shutter speed instead of the bird mode or other choices, and prefocus to where I ‘think’ the action is going to be.
MINUS: Aperture. It’s digital, and not a ‘true’ optical one and so you are going to have some struggles with DOF when using the Raynox attachment that you won’t see in a big pixel cam. Again, it’s a compromise. Here’s a shot that I took with the Nikon/Raynox where I wish I had with me the Sony Laowa which I normally keep nailed at F22.
PLUS: no more lens changes (other than the Raynox, but you don’t open up the sensor chamber with that). But if you’ve ever had to pay a camera store to clean up a camera sensor that got mucked by in-the-field lens changing, you can see the attraction of the ‘one permanently-attached lens does mostly-all’ approach of the bridge camera world.
PLUS: Sticker price. This is what did it for me. No way I could play anywhere near the budget of the mega lens setups I run into while cruising the trails. Even a new (I got a real great used deal) Nikon P950 will only set you back the sales tax you’d pay for a super pro big cam and long lens. Still, I have shared my results with many who DO struggle hauling all that heavy, expensive gear and actually convinced some to sell off their big stuff and join the Nikon Superzoom bridge club. (I’m just sayin’!)
PLUS: travel. Honestly? I don’t even use a camera bag. It’s light and compact enough to keep in my carry-on bag with my tablet, or shove into my clothing pile in any suitcase. Or zip under a coat or jacket when it rains. The big rigs are much heavier, need protection and careful watching of multiple expensive parts and… well, pound for pound, dollar for dollar, worry for worry, shot possibility range – it’s a very decent choice for almost any ‘evolving’ iNatter. (imho, of course)
Good luck with finding your best choice! I’m sure it will be great no matter what.
Since there definitely aren’t enough different options in this thread already:
I use a Fujifilm XT-5 and I love it. For animal photography specifically, it has every setting one may need (iso, shutter speed, burst mode-single shot, photo-video, etc.) as a dial at the top. So adjusting those is very quick (usually enough for the animal to still be there after the adjusting). It also has quite a high pixel-density (40mp on an aps-c sensor) which leaves plenty of room to crop if the subject doesn’t fill the sensor.
My lens is a Laowa 65mm infinity to 2:1 macro which I also wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an amazing lens!
For macro photography, arguably your light setup is most important though. Personally I use a „cheap“ godox flash (v380, or something, I think) with a diy diffusor and it works great.
couple of thoughts
RAW – Google says there are over 200 different RAW formats. (I’d thought dozens). So whatever you get isn’t exchangable, and is subject to dealer lock-in.
I use .jpg, which purists will scoff at, but repeated edits and reduced file sizes have remarkably little effect.
For birds, super quick focusing.
Built-in GPS. – watch battery usage.
I know someone (also on iNat) with this combo, and they are very happy, especially with the weight! I don’t know how Canon managed to make the 100-400mm so lightweight. There is no other full-frame lens (not even APS-C to my knowledge) at that weight.
I think there are some options (I know because I am using them):
I drive a Sony A6700 with a single lens, the Tamron 50-400mm f4.5-6.3 (75-600mm FF equiv.) since October, and I’m very happy. It’s heavier than a Canon + RF 100-400mm f5.6-8, but it is still amongst the most lightweight 400mm FF lenses.
The big advantage is the x8 zoom range and small minimum focus distance at the 50-70mm end, which brings you half macro magnification! This already makes it totally usable for birds, amphibia, butterflies and other medium-sized insects.
Paired with a Raynox DCR-250 (and optimally a flash+diffuser; I use the Godox v350 because it reloads fast for shooting bursts and is small) it can also make great 1x and even 2x macro shots (with focus stacking)!
EDIT: Some examples of focus stacked macro shots using this setup (I have about 10 more in the works rn).
I honestly have nothing to compare against, but I find the Raynox 250 on a tele lens surprisingly usable. Image quality is great for my needs. I never measured working distance, but it feels around 20cm with the 250, and if anything I sometimes find myself wanting less. What exactly were your problems with the 250?
The 50-300mm is roughly half the weight, so much better if you don’t care much about small birds, but otherwise I would recommend the 50-400mm.
I wouldn’t say this is little. As a matter of fact to this date many very good cameras are released with <30MP sensors. Also keep in mind that at fixed sensor size, more MP means smaller pixels, means less light per pixel.
Mirrorless cameras with more than 30MP are most of the time full frame cameras (at least for many systems). When you shoot in crop mode (to get the same effective “zoom” out of your lens as on APS-C) you often have even less MP in your photo than 24MP.
Also, MP might get overrated (for a million reasons honestly, but specifically), because doubling MP has less of an effect (only ~1.4x) compared to doubling focal length (2x). Therefore, I would often rather choose the setup with more mm, rather than more MP, if my goal was ultimate reach.
Specifically for the P950, I would argue that the bottleneck is not the resolution but softness and slowness of the lens and sensor noise (judging from the many P900-1100 photos I saw on iNat). Increasing MP would not get you much more detail, except maybe in very good conditions.
Just ignore me, the Raynox DCR 250 is very good for telephoto lenses.
But I personally experience problems like a very shallow depth of field because my telephoto lens has a 100mm minimum focal length, and the depth of field is compressed too much with the Raynox. I have to use an aperture of around f/16 to get a decent depth of field.
That’s why I recommended the 150 DCR as a better option, because I imagine it handles depth of field much better and also produces very good results.
I think 24MP is perfectly acceptable too! I also have an old Pentax that takes amazing shots with only 10MP. We shouldn’t forget that pros were once shooting great stuff with lower MP numbers for decades. It’s not the hardware/software, it’s the grey-ware.
And that brings up the tech issue of ‘smarter’ and smarter cameras. Especially in the top models out there. You have to wonder what’s going to happen to the ‘softness’ of the line between pros and amateurs when the hardware starts to compensate for so many skills and things that once took years to develop.
As to the 950’s softness factor, I agree – especially with the JPG workflow. Before I putchased though, I downloaded some 950 RAW samples and ran them through my standard RAW batch processor, DxO’s PureRaw. It immediately compensated for the softness and yanked out a ton of detail. Which is why I continue to plug the RAW workflow (and PureRaw which has become a new pro wildlife standard in the toolbox!).
This is one of my first shots I took from the time when I first got my 950 – post with PureRaw.
I have both the Raynox 150 and 250. I mostly use the 150 in the field for two reasons: depth of field is not quite as narrow and working distance is a little longer with less risk of e.g. scaring bugs away because you’re getting too close. I still use the 250 if I want an extreme close-up or do focus stacking on things that don’t move. I’ve also used it to stand in for a microscope, photographing microscope slides on a light box. I love these little clip-on lenses.
Yes, at this level of magnification, it will always be very shake-y with shallow DOF - more or less independent of setup. But with good lighting and good stacking software you can get surprising results with little effort.
Wow, nice! How far away did you take this shot?
While the small thumbnail looks very sharp, once you zoom in you see the (AI?) defects quite a lot. I honestly prefer a little noise and softness over such defects, but I guess this is a question of taste. :)
I shoot nearly all my Sony 6300 macro (with or without a Raynox on the end of my Laowa) with the aperture pegged at f22 and the shutter at 1/200s and the ISO on an autorange that goes up into 32000. And a simple cheap flash, at near minimum power, on the camera with a very cheap curved slip-on diffuser hood. How do I get away with this and avoid noise and detail problems?
A: PureRaw. Again. I think of it as adding two stops to any lens. And that’s through the ISO top range which MOST people simply avoid (as a kind of rule of thumb). PureRaw changes that. In fact, because it extends into high ISO, if you’re looking at a new lens and you like everything except its speed, for less than a couple hundred bucks you can effectively ‘gain’ that speed with PureRaw. And it’ll be there for any lens/camera (provided it’s on their list – but now that list is very extensive).
Here’s an example of PureRaw in action. Keep in mind that I’m one version behind the current (you get lifetime rights to any version, but upgrades are kinda steep).
This little fly was zipping very quickly about. I went into the undergrowth (no flash) with the shutter at 1/4000 and an ISO of 20000 on my Sony 6000 sub c.
You can preview the cleanup to make adjustments. You can also just batch things. It’s reasonably fast. It’s a plugin to Lightroom too, if that’s of interest. (Click to zoom in for more detail)
I try to keep process sharpening artifacts to not be visible at 100%, but I have no problem if they come out at a 200% zoom. Keep in mind too, that this is sampled down image of the larger image which gets rechewed when posting. But yes, you have sliders in PureRaw’s preview and selections on the softness levels too.
Another plus of PureRaw? Their ‘profiles’ (they have a library of different cameras and lenses) that get downloaded based on the metadata info in the RAW file include many much older machines. I’ve ‘rescued’ some otherwise quite noisy shots I found still in RAW format from almost 10 years ago. BTW, I added a shot of the PureRaw interface in another post here you might want to see.
Also? DxO gives you a free week’s trial to try out PureRaw on your files. I tell you, once you see what it can do, it’s dang difficult to not want it. Suddenly those less than optimal lenses, that less than top of the line sensor? Whole new story.
Oops. Forget to answer you shooting distance question. I’m guessing somewhere around 50 to 60 feet. It was on a powe line at the side of a highway’s service road (just two blocks from home!).
Also, this was one of my first shots from the 950 that I ran through PureRaw. I probably was a little over enthusiastic about post-PureRaw detail sharpening. The output from PRaw is softer than this and the latest version, even better for overall detail extraction. I’m pretty sure that I ran this one through Topaz Sharpen after PureRaw. Ih hingsight, I could have been more selective with the sharpening levels and areas. But all these details were pulled from the 950’s sensor.
Cool, thanks!