For those looking for a cheap macro solution...

[King4aDay]

Anyone looking for a cheap way of getting a 1:1 or better macro ratio without splashing out on a full macro lens might want to take a look at the Raynox 202. Its a macro adapter lens which comes with a clip-on attachment for fixing it to any lens with a diameter between 52-67mm. It will also fit a lot of bridge cameras (Sony H1/5, Canon S1/2/3, Panny FZ8 etc). I can't link to where I got it, but theres only one supplier I could locate so if you look hard enough you should be able to find it.

Costs about £45.

Mine arrived today, will find some better subjects tomorrow but here's some quick flower porn. Taken with the 202 attached to my 70-300 VR, using a Sigma ringflash. Looks like it should all work nicely together . You can easily make out the individual pollen grains. The ringflash I think is about to come into its own - this was shot in very low light at iso 100 and f/32! Definitely easier to use than the reversed lens technique I've dabbled with before. Missed the focus a bit but was only playing really, better stuff to follow!

Also, I should probably point out that I find out about this method over at talk photography forums, so can't take any credit!

 

[King4aDay]

Yeah couldn't track down the 202 on ebay, I expect they come up from time to time though. As I understand it the 202 gives considerably greater magnification than the 250 also. There's also a 505 with even greater mag, but I would imagine the DoF would be near unusable depending on what you pair it with.

 

[King4aDay]

With regards to the 3500, I think a lot of the time the magnification you'll get with those will simply be too great. The 202 I was using gives 4.6x magnification - the three lenses in that set are 6x, 12x and 24x. The 6x times be useful, but I should imagine the other two are incredibly difficult to use. Without having used them, I expect the depth of field is literally paper thin..

Depending on what you're using it with, the 250 will probably be useful for larger things, such as whole insects, whole flowers etc, and the 202 better for picking out fine detail.

RE: macro filters - that's essentially what these raynox models are, just with higher magnification than most standard macro filters. Bear in mind with any piece of equipment like this that the more you increase magnification, the closer you need to be to the subject to focus, and smaller your depth of field will be and the less light will be available. They will all require the ability to get very close, and often require the use of an external light source (flash).

For the Butterfly House, I think you'd actually be better off using something like the 250, or whatever the 'standard' recommended macro filters are for your cam. Having said that, people with DSLRs often use lenses in the 70-300 range to take full-body shots of butterflies, and I think your cam has a 10x/12x zoom? - in which case it should be ok for that, with something like the 250 allowing you to pick out some detail if you can get closer to them.

 

[King4aDay]

This was taken on the Nikon 70-300 VR at 85mm. The 202 seemed pretty useable throughout most of the range, although DoF and light availability (for composing) became increasingly problematic towards the long end. For reference, at 300mm each of the 'pollen balls' filled the entire frame, and are about 2-3mm across. At 70mm you lose about 20% of the frame through vignetting (thats on a 67mm diameter lens). I suspect on a nifty fifty you'd probably be somewhere close to 1:1 ratio.

 

[King4aDay]

King, could you provide us with some more macros using this?

Or even if someone else has one, could you post some examples?

Used my macro filter/lenses for the first time today, and while they do offer an improvement over what I was able to capture before, they pictures were not great.

Go to http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/, find the macro forum and look at any threads started by Ajophotog, he uses the 202 extensively, with both his canon dslr gear and a panasonic FZ8.