Best macro lens for a digital camera

What is the best macro lens snap ons for a digital camera. I am looking to get one and I already now about the raynox lens. Are there any others that are well-known.

I have this full lens and I enjoy its versatility

You can’t just buy any lens for your camera unless you want to pay for additional parts, what is the brand you have?

My brand is Nikon. It is a Nikon coolpix L330

I think this question is specifically about a lens to put additionally in front of a normal camera lens.
And for such a purpose, the Raynox seems to be second to none.
I myself got one recently, so I did some reading beforehand, and it was recommended everywhere.
Just note there is the DCR-150 and the DCR-250, which have different minimal distances / diopters


But it’s not a DSLR, are you going to get another Nikon? (I think you meant Nikon and not Nixon?)

1 Like

NiSi makes screw on macro adaptors that work the same way as the Raynox ones (except that they are screw on). They are a little cheaper depending on where and when you buy them but my understanding is that they aren’t quite as good. If you have the extra dollars Raynox is the way to go.

1 Like

Your camera is not a DSLR. And it doesn’t, from what I can see, have a threaded lens. So your only option would be to put a mattebox on the lens, but I couldn’t see that working all that well and you’d have a lot of trouble finding something to fit it. The camera does have a built in macro mode and after reviewing some images on google I think it produces some pretty good shots as it is, so I wouldn’t worry. If you want to step up, you can always upgrade into something like ASZ-400T with Camera & Ring Light Bundle. Maybe someone else here can point you in the right direction.


Oops I meant Nikon. I never like it when the computer auto corrects me. I got my cameras mixed up mine is a digital camera.

1 Like

@wildlife13 I use a Raynox 250 on my Canon PowerShot and Nikon P950 peashooters (bridge cameras with sensors roughly the size of a pea).

I initially used the clip-on that came with the Raynox, until one day it snagged on a branch, fell off, and almost tumbled over a cliff. So I purchased a filter screw adapter for my Canon (the Nikon already had one) and bought adapters so I can now put them on and off as needed. I tend to use the Cannon more for macro as the mag range is more typical. For your Nikon L330, this would probably work:

But it’s great to have the out-zoom power of a good bridge and then (almost) instantly be able to in-zoom by just reaching into my pocket for the Raynox (some sample shots).

The Raynox is great, but there’s another good manufacturer too and I’ve read a lot of debates about the differences. It seems to come down to the tele range of the lens you’re saying the adaptor onto. One manufacturer designs to a different length than another which is why there are conflicting reviews on each. I’ll see if I can find that discussion.

Another possibly even less expensive solution (which I’m having fun exploring right now) is instead of a $75 Raynox, why not pick up an old manual nifty-fifty (50 mm prime)? You can sometimes get some awesome vintage lenses for like 20 dollars, or if you have an old 35mm film SLR around, maybe for nothing! (That was my case.)

All you need then is a male-to-male adapter for the end of your bridge cam’s zoom, and you’re in. (Get the end that faces your camera thread to work with the same as the one you get for the Raynox to save some hassle and switching time.)

I would advise looking for the lightest lens you can find (plastic is good here), to avoid overwhelming the bridge camera’s zoom motor.

And the wider the lens on the inside of the 50mm lens (the lens that normally is facing the film or sensor but is now facing out), the less chance of too much vignetting when you’re not zoomed in all the way (more usable range).

A bonus with using a reversed 50mm? If it’s an old enough lens, it will also have a manual aperture ring which is not what you get with a Raynox and in some situations, it can be handy to have. Like, it really can add some depth of field (at the sacrifice of light volume, of course). There’s also a manual focus ring on most 50s, so it may be possible to use it for some primitive stacking experiments. I’ve yet to try that one. Oh, and if you go the 50 route? Find a rear lens protector cap and cut a hole in the top big enough for the lens to clear for a safer and neater looking rig.

In practice, the Ranox gives a lot more lens-to-subject working range than the 50s I’ve tried so far. In fact, sometimes the Raynox’s working distance of around 110 to 120mm (on my gear) is almost too much because if it’s an extreme zoom, you need somewhere to prop your fingers onto the lens to help stabilize. Not such a problem with a reversed 50, where the distance is closer to 35mm for subject-to-lens.

Also, the 50mm will show vignetting through more of the zoom range than the Raynox. Which means you don’t have as good a capture range.

Anyhow, here’s the two bridge buds with the Raynox. I just leave those adapters in place for all shooting without any problems.

The nifty-50 solution (still looking for a rear lens cap!). Note that the male-to-male specs match the already-in-use of the Raynox adapter that I leave on the camera. Good to minimize your adapter changes!


@wildlife13 The other brand I was trying to remember was Marumi.

This is a good discussion comparing it with Raynox. Both macro extenders seemed to be optimized to different lens partners.

The nice thing is that the extenders are very easy to test quickly. I sometimes wish that I had gone with a Raynox-150 instead of the 250, but I do like getting in there towards the 1-2mm-long subject range.

But the 150 on a bigger zoom (which I have now with the Nikon 950) would probably give that camera more vignetting-free range which might in the end be worth it. Tough to know until you try.

My next step? A dedicated macro lens such as the Laowa 25mm (oh baby!), which would really take me into the tiny range I’m after without worries. Plus the crispness! Laowas are very popular choices for macro even though most of them are completely manual. But as you’ll learn, that makes very little difference in macro shooting practice. It’s really all about the optics.


Your camera already has a macro facility. However, if you use the default “easy auto” mode, it may not automatically turn on the macro when you need it. To work around that, you can switch to standard “auto” mode and then turn on the macro manually with the multi-selector button (the macro is normaly shown as a flower symbol).

Once the macro is activated, you should be able to focus at about 1-3 cm from the subject. It may also be possible to zoom in very slightly and still get a good focus from a bit further away. I suggest you experiment with the settings a little in good lighting conditions to see what works well with your camera.

PS: if you know all this already, but have found the results unsatisfactory, perhaps you should explain a little more what the problems are. I have a cheaper compact camera than yours and I have found it can take pretty decent macro shots in the right lghting conditions. However, that could be because my expectations are a lot lower than yours :-)


Thanks all for the insight! I will do some research and see what I should get.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.