Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-12-2010, 07:05 AM   #16
Veteran Member
KjetilH's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oslo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 309
The "old" Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 did 1:2.3. Very useful at times. The newer OS does 1:2,7, if I remember right.

05-12-2010, 07:59 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
Original Poster
Well, I have the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 and the macro on that just isn't quite good enough.

I'll have to look at some reviews. I like the looks of the Sigma 150mm. But then of course, that's kind of pie in the sky! Do they even make that for Pentax mount though?

I'd go for the Pentax 100mm if I had that kind of wallet cash.

Thanks for all of your suggestions, everyone! They sure do make understand things come easier...
05-12-2010, 08:05 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,547
QuoteOriginally posted by Ubuntu_user Quote
Well, I have the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 and the macro on that just isn't quite good enough.

I'll have to look at some reviews. I like the looks of the Sigma 150mm. But then of course, that's kind of pie in the sky! Do they even make that for Pentax mount though?

I'd go for the Pentax 100mm if I had that kind of wallet cash.

Thanks for all of your suggestions, everyone! They sure do make understand things come easier...
I am getting excellent results from my M 100/4 macro. It's a bit harder to focus with the f/4 vs f/2.8, but the image quality is right up there. This year I plan on doing some bug chasing with the F 1.7X AF on it. I have not checked this for IQ yet. I'm still playing with the M 400 + 1.7 to see if that can actually take a clear image. I did some quick tests yesterday while waiting for a pair of Harlequin ducks who were no shows during the time I had available.
05-12-2010, 09:25 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
I am getting excellent results from my M 100/4 macro. It's a bit harder to focus with the f/4 vs f/2.8, but the image quality is right up there. This year I plan on doing some bug chasing with the F 1.7X AF on it. I have not checked this for IQ yet. I'm still playing with the M 400 + 1.7 to see if that can actually take a clear image. I did some quick tests yesterday while waiting for a pair of Harlequin ducks who were no shows during the time I had available.
Cool!

05-12-2010, 11:07 AM   #20
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
The Raynox doesn't work (well) with the 50-135 as there is some pretty significant vignetting.
Is this true thru out the zoom range at any aperture.?
05-12-2010, 11:14 AM   #21
Pentaxian
Mike.P's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,758
QuoteOriginally posted by aliquis Quote

Tamron AF 60mm f/2 Di II LD [IF] SP Macro


Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM


Tamron AF 180mm f/3.5 SP Di LD [IF]



None of which are available in Pentax mount.
05-12-2010, 11:21 AM   #22
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
I only recieved the Raynox (150) last night and only just threw it on the 50-135 this morning in order to answer the question on the thread. I don't have them in front of me at the moment, but as I recall at 50mm you lose over half the area frame, even if you stop the lens down quite a bit. At 135mm you lose the corners. As I recall the corners were still affected even stopped down, although less so than wide open. Again, I only played with it for a couple minutes this morning, but I'll be glad to check this and report back with more details this evening.

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
Is this true thru out the zoom range at any aperture.?
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
The Raynox doesn't work (well) with the 50-135 as there is some pretty significant vignetting.
05-12-2010, 11:57 AM   #23
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike.P Quote
None of which are available in Pentax mount.
*facepalm than cries in corner*

05-12-2010, 01:13 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike.P Quote
None of which are available in Pentax mount.
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
*facepalm than cries in corner*
How come Pentax is the under dog? *sniff, sniff* :'(

Really though, why don't these manufactures have a higher priority on us "Pentaxers??"
05-12-2010, 01:28 PM   #25
Site Supporter
shiner's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N GA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,457
I suspect you may see more used D-FA100mm Macros on the market, as some will want to "upgrade" to the new WR. I know I do...
05-12-2010, 01:34 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Bramela's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Newcastle Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,281
Personally. for a Pentax AF Macro capability, the DA35mm is very recommendable.
Using the 50-135 for Macro, is a no go, as others have indicated.

I have both and appreciate the capability of both.
For a MF Macro lens the Vivitar Ser 1 105mm Macro, takes some beating IMHO.
05-12-2010, 01:55 PM   #27
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I only recieved the Raynox (150) last night and only just threw it on the 50-135 this morning in order to answer the question on the thread. I don't have them in front of me at the moment, but as I recall at 50mm you lose over half the area frame, even if you stop the lens down quite a bit. At 135mm you lose the corners. As I recall the corners were still affected even stopped down, although less so than wide open. Again, I only played with it for a couple minutes this morning, but I'll be glad to check this and report back with more details this evening.
Let me know how it works out. If you can post some shots, it would be great.
05-12-2010, 02:53 PM   #28
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
examples of Raynox + 50-135 vignetting

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
Let me know how it works out. If you can post some shots, it would be great.
Here are four quick shots I just took at 50mm and 135mm at f/2.8 and f/11.

05-12-2010, 03:09 PM   #29
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,686
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I only recieved the Raynox (150) last night and only just threw it on the 50-135 this morning in order to answer the question on the thread. I don't have them in front of me at the moment, but as I recall at 50mm you lose over half the area frame, even if you stop the lens down quite a bit. At 135mm you lose the corners. As I recall the corners were still affected even stopped down, although less so than wide open. Again, I only played with it for a couple minutes this morning, but I'll be glad to check this and report back with more details this evening.
I'm interested to hear your results. Please make sure to try different apertures and focal distances from infinity to close focus as well. Both make a difference.

I don't see why the 150 wouldn't work on this lens. It works on my 16-45 which has a wider fov and the same filter size.
05-12-2010, 03:26 PM   #30
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I'm interested to hear your results. Please make sure to try different apertures and focal distances from infinity to close focus as well. Both make a difference.

I don't see why the 150 wouldn't work on this lens. It works on my 16-45 which has a wider fov and the same filter size.
The above pictures were taken somewhere in between the MFD and infinity. That being said, with the 150 on the lens, there is practically no difference between "close" and "infinity". By that I mean at 135mm, the range of how far you can be from the subject is only a couple of inches. I didn't measure the exact lengths, but the "close-focus" distance was about 14-15 inches from the sensor plane and the "infinity" focus distance was about 16-17 inches (give or take). That's another reason that this isn't the most practical macro solution.

FWIW, I just shot a couple quick shots off and the results are not very sensitive to where in that couple inch focal range you are.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50-135mm, da*, da* 50-135mm, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 Mini-Zoom Macro & Sears 135mm F2.8 Macro MF lens DaveInPA Sold Items 3 01-08-2010 05:38 PM
Sears 135mm f3.5 Macro vs Takumar 135mm f2.5 mrpackerguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 10-20-2008 01:36 PM
Vivitar 28-135mm/3.5-4.5 Macro blip Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 07-04-2008 02:37 PM
Tamron 135mm macro klika Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 09-12-2007 05:04 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top