[yeatzee]

Well I finally found some flies today only to be sorely disappointed by the amount of shots taken.... a whopping ZERO. This was because 1:1 was not enough magnification that I needed so I strapped the M 50mm reversed on the sigma 105mm macro for tha extra "oomph." BUT, with this setup my working distance is less than an inch away from the from element! All my macro shots in the last month have been taken using this technique (see: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/100783-macro-jumping-spider.html, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/100408-macro-arm-killer.html, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/100412-macro-praying-mantis-portrait.html,etc. etc.). I am very happy with the results, but the efficiency is not there. 98% of my macro shoots are filled with me not taking a single picture, but rather trying to get close enough to the subject without scaring it away. Eventually, I *usually* get the opportunity to take the shot but If I miss it I often have to wait another 10+ minutes to get another opportunity. Its killing me...

So, What can I do to get ~2:1 magnification, yet have a much longer working distance? Anything I can do with my current equipment (see signature)?

---

Last edited by yeatzee; 05-12-2010 at 06:35 PM.

[Adam]

I've got to say, I'm quite impressed with those results! I don't think I've ever had much success beyond 1-1, because my setup never seemed to be able to be properly stabilized.

What if you put extension tubes on a 200mm macro? Its minimum focusing distance (1:1) is about half a meter, so with some tubes, you would me looking at more magnification slightly closer to the lens.

I've tried this setup, but quickly gave up because the metering got very tedious. I prefer the bare 200mm.

[wlachan]

Your 105 macro with 2X TC plus extension tube? The Pentax A2X-S will give you 2x magnification w/o changing the shooting distance.

[Ira]

I've got this supposedly amazing Panagor macro converter (m42) which gives you 2x and brings you to 2:1 with a 1:1 macro.

The problem is, my only 1:1 macro is the Tamron 90, and I don't have any 1:1 m42 macro lenses to use it on.

I guess I'll maybe LBA the Tak 50 F4 macro one day to actually use it, but at 50 as opposed to 90, what's the point? Same working distance.

Did they make any decent (or any) longer m42 1:1 macros back in the day?

[SpecialK]

Well I finally found some flies today...

You know, if we did not know you, we might think you are a little out there on the fringe... :-)

[audiobomber]

So, What can I do to get ~2:1 magnification, yet have a much longer working distance? Anything I can do with my current equipment (see signature)?

A Raynox 250 diopter on the 200mm will get you to 2:1, with four inches from the front element to the subject. On the 55-300 you can get 3:1 at 300m and the same working distance, but IQ on a zoom isn't as pretty. You can get about 3:1 on the Sigma 105, but working distance will be less, maybe a couple of inches.

[yeatzee]

I've got to say, I'm quite impressed with those results! I don't think I've ever had much success beyond 1-1, because my setup never seemed to be able to be properly stabilized.

What if you put extension tubes on a 200mm macro? Its minimum focusing distance (1:1) is about half a meter, so with some tubes, you would me looking at more magnification slightly closer to the lens.

I've tried this setup, but quickly gave up because the metering got very tedious. I prefer the bare 200mm.

A 200mm macro? I wish
Might as well switch to canon and get the MPE-65 for that kind of money

Your 105 macro with 2X TC plus extension tube? The Pentax A2X-S will give you 2x magnification w/o changing the shooting distance.

I need to be able to shoot wirelessly so it would have to be an automatic TC, which cost mucho $ or quality sucks. Im striving for best possible IQ.

I've got this supposedly amazing Panagor macro converter (m42) which gives you 2x and brings you to 2:1 with a 1:1 macro.

The problem is, my only 1:1 macro is the Tamron 90, and I don't have any 1:1 m42 macro lenses to use it on.

I guess I'll maybe LBA the Tak 50 F4 macro one day to actually use it, but at 50 as opposed to 90, what's the point? Same working distance.

Did they make any decent (or any) longer m42 1:1 macros back in the day?

Sounds interesting, but sadly I have zero interest in M42 lenses.

You know, if we did not know you, we might think you are a little out there on the fringe... :-)

A Raynox 250 diopter on the 200mm will get you to 2:1, with four inches from the front element to the subject. On the 55-300 you can get 3:1 at 300m and the same working distance, but IQ on a zoom isn't as pretty. You can get about 3:1 on the Sigma 105, but working distance will be less, maybe a couple of inches.

i've thought about this and am not sure what to think. my M 200mm is being sold in the market place as we speak, the 55-300mm's IQ is good but not good enough for macro work. How do you calculate the magnification I will get with this diopter? 3:1 with more working distance than I currently have sounds VERY interesting.... though at that point macro will be impossible without focus stacking, which I cannot seem to understand

Any more suggestions? I was thinking there has to be an answer with reversing lenses minus the sigma 105mm... How much mag. will a reversed 28mm give me? How can I get 2:1 with a reversed lens with more working distance than less than an inch like my current setup?

[Ira]

I'm kind of confused by your problem in the first place:

If you go to the Tammy club... or perhaps other clubs...where people show their 1:1 macro shots done on 90s or so and cropped for final presentation and they're magical, exactly what is it that you're trying to reinvent for better results?

I'm all ears, but I don't understand where you want to go with this.

[yeatzee]

I'm kind of confused by your problem in the first place:

If you go to the Tammy club... or perhaps other clubs...where people show their 1:1 macro shots done on 90s or so and cropped for final presentation and they're magical, exactly what is it that you're trying to reinvent for better results?

I'm all ears, but I don't understand where you want to go with this.

Looking through, I do not see one image even remotely "magical." I am not looking for 1:1, or cropped 1:1. To get the quality of Thomas Sahan, Xuân Bảo, etc. takes more than simply pulling out the good o'le 1:1 macro lens and cropping Ira.

I guess my standards are much higher.

[Ira]

Looking through, I do not see one image even remotely "magical." I am not looking for 1:1, or cropped 1:1. To get the quality of Thomas Sahan, Xuân Bảo, etc. takes more than simply pulling out the good o'le 1:1 macro lens and cropping Ira.

I guess my standards are much higher.

Really? Your standards are higher?

Okay:

Would you like to post your best 3 macro shots here ever, and I'll post 3 taken with the Tamron 90, so we can all objectively judge your high standards?

Not trying to be hostile, but let's call a spade a spade.

[NeverSatisfied]

Wow Sahan's work is impressive! Thanks for that link Yeatzee.

[yeatzee]

I can't get to flickr on the computer i am on now, so go ahead and use the three linked in my first post Ira though they are not my best.....

Though you are clearly getting ahead of yourself as I said my standards are high, because I have discovered such good photographers such as the ones I linked taking pictures at mag. far greater than 1:1. Not one image in the tammy thread can compare to Thomas or XBN's images IMO.... not even close. Am I "tooting my own horn"? NO! I never claimed my images are even in the same ball park as theirs... but I am striving every day to get there Comparing 1:1 cropped/uncropped tammy images as you said to my images that are greater than 1:1 is hardly "calling a spade a spade."

(do me a favor and read the WHOLE first post. I clearly say I want above ~2:1 so it seemed apparent to me that my comment towards the tammy post of yours was because 1:1 is not what im looking for. When I said my standards were higher IS BECAUSE of people like Thomas... not because im some prideful kid who thinks his images are better than everyone elses )

Id still be interested to here the response though, so go for it Ira! One condition though, post your own fav. 3 macro photo's to compare also Im open for critiques any day of the week. How else am I supposed to be a better photographer?
-------------------------
Your welcome never satisfied

[gofour3]

Any more suggestions? I was thinking there has to be an answer with reversing lenses minus the sigma 105mm... How much mag. will a reversed 28mm give me? How can I get 2:1 with a reversed lens with more working distance than less than an inch like my current setup?

Because of the location of the optical nodes in the K28/3.5, it is one of the best lenses available for reversing, examples:

Reversed will give you 1.9:1 magnification.
Reversed with Auto Extension Tube #1 will give you 2.32:1 magnification.
Reversed with Auto Extension Tube #2 will give you 2.56:1 magnification.
Reversed with Auto Extension Tube #3 will give you 2.81:1 magnification.
Reversed with Auto Extension Tube #1+2+3 will give you 3.90:1 magnification.
Reversed with Bellows K extension at 32mm will give you 3.02:1 magnification.
Reversed with Bellows K extension at 137mm will give you 6.72:1 magnification.

For the last listing the film plane to subject distance is 280.5mm.

Phil.

[Blue]

Yeatzee, when you get into the greater than 1:1 realm, consider a tripod and focusing rail. That allows the actually moving of the camera for focusing. One of the first dedicated piece of macro equipment I bought was a focusing rail.

[Blue]

Did they make any decent (or any) longer m42 1:1 macros back in the day?

Tomioka and later Yashinon Tomioka made a 60mm f2.8 1:1 m42 macro. Mamiya also had a version.