Suggestion for beginner macro lens

Javaslinger · 12-07-2010, 09:38 AM

I'd like to get a macro lens but not break the bank doing it.

I would prefer that it had the usual macro features of close focusing and 1:1 aspect, but it doesn't necessarily need to have the best quality....

Any suggestions...

Javaslinger

SOldBear · 12-07-2010, 09:50 AM

Not sure how big your bank is.

But I think the best bang for the buck is Tamron macro 90mm F/2.8.

jolepp · 12-07-2010, 09:57 AM

A cheap macro lens would be the Cosina 100mm 1:3.5:

Cosina 100mm F1:3,5 MC Makro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database
Cosina AF 100mm f/3.5 macro (Pentax) - Review / Lab Test Report

This has also been sold as Phonix, Promaster and Vivitar (at least). It does 1:2 by itself and 1:1 with the included "matched adapter" (a lens that fixes to the filter thread).

Another cheap and decent macro option would be the Raynox 150 (or 250) add-on (see: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html)

cyclone3d · 12-07-2010, 10:06 AM

Extension tubes are also a good option.

Javaslinger · 12-07-2010, 10:27 AM

I'm very interested in that Cosina lens. Is it difficult to find? I don't see it on Amazon or Ebay...

Thanks,

Ken

**boriscleto** · 12-07-2010, 10:32 AM

Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B) Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

Don't bother with an AF lens. AF is not needed for macro work and just adds to the expense. If you want to do macro work with an AF lens, get a Raynox.

jolepp · 12-07-2010, 10:40 AM

It appears on ebay time to time, got mine there (for US$82, badged Promaster, MF but this is ok for macro). It might be worth checking out ebay.uk too, my experience is that most of the time the sellers are happy to send to outside UK if asked politely (there is one going there now, but probably not worth asking as the seller explicitly states 'UK only'). Another idea would be putting a wanted ad on the marketplace here.

**Rense** · 12-07-2010, 10:45 AM

Around 100mm: Panagor/Vivitar 90/2.8 1:1 macro
Around 50mm: Panagor/Vivitar 50/2.8

You could also browse here: Macro Photography - PentaxForums.com

**NaClH2O** · 12-07-2010, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Javaslinger

I'd like to get a macro lens but not break the bank doing it.

I would prefer that it had the usual macro features of close focusing and 1:1 aspect, but it doesn't necessarily need to have the best quality....

Any suggestions...

Javaslinger

Raynox 250, not quite 1:1 but close enough (pun intended) There is even a "club" thread here The two best things about a Raynox (besides image quality) are:
1: it's small, can easily fit in your bag and turns almost any lens into a "macro" lens w/o the hassle of changing lenses
2: Compared to a "real" macro lens, it is very inexpensive, IIRC I paid about $60 for mine lasst summer.

NaCl(worth looking into)H2O

Frogfish · 12-07-2010, 11:10 AM

Another vote for the Tamron 90 Di - fantastic lense for macro, street & portraits.

EBay has lots and you should be able to pick one up BIN for under $350 new ... quite a lot less if you keep plugging away at the auctions until you win one with a lowish bid.

Rense (above) is a fantastic macro shooter - but I disagree with him on the 50mm - it is too short for general use, you need a 90 / 100 / 105.

Also I disagree with people who say disregard AF in macro - there are some techniques that can get you fantastic shots when MF simply can't (or if your eyesight isn't brilliant etc.).

EDIT. And NaClH2O's suggestion of the Raynox is excellent too. I have this and it does a great job ...... BUT minimum focus distance is very close to the subject (2 or 3 inches).

**Just1MoreDave** · 12-07-2010, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B) Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

Don't bother with an AF lens. AF is not needed for macro work and just adds to the expense. If you want to do macro work with an AF lens, get a Raynox.

Those two lenses are great ideas, and I have them both. The Sigma has everything I'd want in a macro lens: 1:1, an A position, quality, even f2.8. I pretty much stole it on eBay for $60. The Tamron is a little more trouble, requiring an Adaptall PK-A adapter for the A position and a converter for 1:1. It's a great lens otherwise, and also fills in as a moderate telephoto.

For features, I like the KA mount lenses because it makes flash easier, and flash makes macro easier.* Everyone wants 1:1 but keep in mind that the highest magnifications are more difficult. Lens speed looks like a luxury for macro, but adds to flexibility for general use. Faster lenses do mean brighter viewfinders and easier manual focus. I agree with the statement about AF and Raynox, but I've never used either.

I also have a Panagor PMC 90mm f2.8, no A position but 1:1 without adapters. It may be difficult to find. All these lenses are better than my technique; I wish I could blame the lenses but no.

I've used the Cosina (Phoenix version, KA manual focus), the Pentax-M 50mm and 100mm f4s, and the Vivitar Macro focusing Teleconverter. Again, the lenses are better than I am, though the Vivitar MFTC depends on what lens I use. The Cosina feels really cheap and is mostly plastic, but has reasonable optical quality and will last a lot longer than you think. The Pentaxes are the exact opposite in build quality, the 50 is compact, but both are only 1:2 and f4. That means manual focusing is harder, and extension tubes for higher magnification make that worse. The Vivitar is good with a 50mm lens but can cost more than other solutions with all the contacts for KA mount.

*Extension tubes with KA mount contacts are hard to find and expensive. I buy cheap KA 2x teleconverters and remove the glass.

jolepp · 12-07-2010, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

...
EDIT. And NaClH2O's suggestion of the Raynox is excellent too. I have this and it does a great job ...... BUT minimum focus distance is very close to the subject (2 or 3 inches).

I believe the working distance is roughly equal to the focal length of the lens on which this is mounted, e.g. you'll get around 10" with the DA 55-300 @300mm and Raynox 150 while magnification is somewhat >1x.

Frogfish · 12-07-2010, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by jolepp

I believe the working distance is roughly equal to the focal length of the lens on which this is mounted, e.g. you'll get around 10" with the DA 55-300 @300mm and Raynox 150 while magnification is somewhat >1x.

Ah - that may well be accurate since I usually add it to my Tamron 90 ..... so roughly 3".

SOldBear · 12-07-2010, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Don't bother with an AF lens. AF is not needed for macro work and just adds to the expense.

Don't agree completely with this statement, which I hear a lot.

AF is not needed for macro work, it's also not needed for other types of photography (I survived with MF until 1994). But it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

More importantly, a macro lens is not only for macro work. My Sigma 50mm macro and especially my Tamron 90mm macro are excellent for portraits.

Banjo · 12-07-2010, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Javaslinger

I'd like to get a macro lens but not break the bank doing it.

I would prefer that it had the usual macro features of close focusing and 1:1 aspect, but it doesn't necessarily need to have the best quality....

Any suggestions...

Javaslinger

Check out the Raynox Macro Club or some other close-up lens, to see if Macro is for you:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

12-07-2010, 09:38 AM	#1
Javaslinger Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Blacksburg, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 286	Suggestion for beginner macro lens I'd like to get a macro lens but not break the bank doing it. I would prefer that it had the usual macro features of close focusing and 1:1 aspect, but it doesn't necessarily need to have the best quality.... Any suggestions... Javaslinger

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which Lens for a Beginner?	jaieger	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	12	07-10-2010 06:12 PM
Please help beginner - new lens testing	Lumic	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	01-10-2010 09:41 AM
Beginner Help: Macro Equipment	Tomzee93	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	12-30-2009 10:58 AM
Best beginner flash - k200d macro	ds1w	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	09-23-2008 02:34 PM
Beginner: Do I need another lens? Which one?	sewebster	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	07-08-2008 03:09 PM

12-07-2010, 09:50 AM	#2
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	Not sure how big your bank is. But I think the best bang for the buck is Tamron macro 90mm F/2.8.

12-07-2010, 09:57 AM	#3
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	A cheap macro lens would be the Cosina 100mm 1:3.5: Cosina 100mm F1:3,5 MC Makro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database Cosina AF 100mm f/3.5 macro (Pentax) - Review / Lab Test Report This has also been sold as Phonix, Promaster and Vivitar (at least). It does 1:2 by itself and 1:1 with the included "matched adapter" (a lens that fixes to the filter thread). Another cheap and decent macro option would be the Raynox 150 (or 250) add-on (see: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html)

12-07-2010, 10:06 AM	#4
cyclone3d Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 511	Extension tubes are also a good option.

12-07-2010, 10:27 AM	#5
Javaslinger Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Blacksburg, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 286 Original Poster	I'm very interested in that Cosina lens. Is it difficult to find? I don't see it on Amazon or Ebay... Thanks, Ken

12-07-2010, 10:32 AM	#6
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B) Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database Don't bother with an AF lens. AF is not needed for macro work and just adds to the expense. If you want to do macro work with an AF lens, get a Raynox.

12-07-2010, 10:40 AM	#7
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	It appears on ebay time to time, got mine there (for US$82, badged Promaster, MF but this is ok for macro). It might be worth checking out ebay.uk too, my experience is that most of the time the sellers are happy to send to outside UK if asked politely (there is one going there now, but probably not worth asking as the seller explicitly states 'UK only'). Another idea would be putting a wanted ad on the marketplace here.

12-07-2010, 10:45 AM	#8
Rense Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,050	Around 100mm: Panagor/Vivitar 90/2.8 1:1 macro Around 50mm: Panagor/Vivitar 50/2.8 You could also browse here: Macro Photography - PentaxForums.com

12-07-2010, 11:08 AM	#9
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by Javaslinger I'd like to get a macro lens but not break the bank doing it. I would prefer that it had the usual macro features of close focusing and 1:1 aspect, but it doesn't necessarily need to have the best quality.... Any suggestions... Javaslinger Raynox 250, not quite 1:1 but close enough (pun intended) There is even a "club" thread here The two best things about a Raynox (besides image quality) are: 1: it's small, can easily fit in your bag and turns almost any lens into a "macro" lens w/o the hassle of changing lenses 2: Compared to a "real" macro lens, it is very inexpensive, IIRC I paid about $60 for mine lasst summer. NaCl(worth looking into)H2O

12-07-2010, 11:10 AM	#10
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Another vote for the Tamron 90 Di - fantastic lense for macro, street & portraits. EBay has lots and you should be able to pick one up BIN for under $350 new ... quite a lot less if you keep plugging away at the auctions until you win one with a lowish bid. Rense (above) is a fantastic macro shooter - but I disagree with him on the 50mm - it is too short for general use, you need a 90 / 100 / 105. Also I disagree with people who say disregard AF in macro - there are some techniques that can get you fantastic shots when MF simply can't (or if your eyesight isn't brilliant etc.). EDIT. And NaClH2O's suggestion of the Raynox is excellent too. I have this and it does a great job ...... BUT minimum focus distance is very close to the subject (2 or 3 inches).

12-07-2010, 11:34 AM	#11
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by boriscleto Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B) Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database Don't bother with an AF lens. AF is not needed for macro work and just adds to the expense. If you want to do macro work with an AF lens, get a Raynox. Those two lenses are great ideas, and I have them both. The Sigma has everything I'd want in a macro lens: 1:1, an A position, quality, even f2.8. I pretty much stole it on eBay for $60. The Tamron is a little more trouble, requiring an Adaptall PK-A adapter for the A position and a converter for 1:1. It's a great lens otherwise, and also fills in as a moderate telephoto. For features, I like the KA mount lenses because it makes flash easier, and flash makes macro easier.* Everyone wants 1:1 but keep in mind that the highest magnifications are more difficult. Lens speed looks like a luxury for macro, but adds to flexibility for general use. Faster lenses do mean brighter viewfinders and easier manual focus. I agree with the statement about AF and Raynox, but I've never used either. I also have a Panagor PMC 90mm f2.8, no A position but 1:1 without adapters. It may be difficult to find. All these lenses are better than my technique; I wish I could blame the lenses but no. I've used the Cosina (Phoenix version, KA manual focus), the Pentax-M 50mm and 100mm f4s, and the Vivitar Macro focusing Teleconverter. Again, the lenses are better than I am, though the Vivitar MFTC depends on what lens I use. The Cosina feels really cheap and is mostly plastic, but has reasonable optical quality and will last a lot longer than you think. The Pentaxes are the exact opposite in build quality, the 50 is compact, but both are only 1:2 and f4. That means manual focusing is harder, and extension tubes for higher magnification make that worse. The Vivitar is good with a 50mm lens but can cost more than other solutions with all the contacts for KA mount. *Extension tubes with KA mount contacts are hard to find and expensive. I buy cheap KA 2x teleconverters and remove the glass.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-07-2010, 11:44 AM	#12
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	Originally posted by Frogfish ... EDIT. And NaClH2O's suggestion of the Raynox is excellent too. I have this and it does a great job ...... BUT minimum focus distance is very close to the subject (2 or 3 inches). I believe the working distance is roughly equal to the focal length of the lens on which this is mounted, e.g. you'll get around 10" with the DA 55-300 @300mm and Raynox 150 while magnification is somewhat >1x.

12-07-2010, 11:48 AM	#13
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by jolepp I believe the working distance is roughly equal to the focal length of the lens on which this is mounted, e.g. you'll get around 10" with the DA 55-300 @300mm and Raynox 150 while magnification is somewhat >1x. Ah - that may well be accurate since I usually add it to my Tamron 90 ..... so roughly 3".

12-07-2010, 12:10 PM	#14
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	Originally posted by boriscleto Don't bother with an AF lens. AF is not needed for macro work and just adds to the expense. Don't agree completely with this statement, which I hear a lot. AF is not needed for macro work, it's also not needed for other types of photography (I survived with MF until 1994). But it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. More importantly, a macro lens is not only for macro work. My Sigma 50mm macro and especially my Tamron 90mm macro are excellent for portraits.

12-07-2010, 05:19 PM	#15
Banjo Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 207	Originally posted by Javaslinger I'd like to get a macro lens but not break the bank doing it. I would prefer that it had the usual macro features of close focusing and 1:1 aspect, but it doesn't necessarily need to have the best quality.... Any suggestions... Javaslinger Check out the Raynox Macro Club or some other close-up lens, to see if Macro is for you: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html