[Buschmaster]

So I am in the mood for a macro lens. So I'm thinking it's down to the 50mm A Macro, the 50mm FA Macro, and the 50mm D-FA Macro.

I'm not sure which to go with, can anyone list any of the pros and cons of these lenses stacked up against each other? ALL Pros and cons, including cost and all.

By the way, the 50mm A Macro is lacking for me because it's only 1:2 and the others are 1:1, also, I believe the other 2 are AF so they would even make nice and easy protrait lenses. Correct?

Thanks!

[Lowell Goudge]

I would go for neither, opting instead for a 100mm or longer macro.

the reason being that 1:1 is only achieved at minimum focusing distance, which with a 50mm lens will be less than 100 mm away from the subject.

you would enjoy the greater working distance that a 100 mm macro provides, and unless you want to spend hours touching up portraits to remove every blemish, a lot of people over the years have commented that a macro is usually too sharp for portraits.

[rvannatta]

I would go for neither, opting instead for a 100mm or longer macro.

the reason being that 1:1 is only achieved at minimum focusing distance, which with a 50mm lens will be less than 100 mm away from the subject.

you would enjoy the greater working distance that a 100 mm macro provides, and unless you want to spend hours touching up portraits to remove every blemish, a lot of people over the years have commented that a macro is usually too sharp for portraits.

I'm so radical that I'm going to get flamed, but I wouldn't suggest buying a macro lens at all at least to start. Macro lenses have two 'special features' as I understand it. --- The helicoid has more travel for closer focusing, and they are corrected for 'flatness of field.' No flatness of field is very important if you plan on photographing postage stamps or other flat objects. It does nothing for you if you are going out in the garden to photo graph an insect because they aren't flat anyway.

Therefore the reasonable way to enter the world of macro photography
is with extension tubes, or a single helicoid tube. Far less expensive.

That said, I agree with you 'longer is better' for macro photography because
you need the working space to get the light on the object.

depth of field (actually lack thereof) is the killer in macrophotography, and the remedy for that is more light so you can stop down.

If you have a ring light you can use a 50mm decently, but I am aware of no compatble ring light with the K10D so presumably the extra working distance
will give you more options for getting enough light on the subject so you can stop down to where you need to.

One of my 'sore points' with pentax is that the obsoleted all of their flashes except the new G series and there is no G series ring light leaving macro photographers in a swamp.

[Buschmaster]

Well, one thing I would like about 50mm would be that I could use it for closer things. If I'm doing studio shots I can sit right next to the subject at hand and snap shots.

Mostly the whole price thing is the main factor. But are all 3 types (A, FA, and D-FA) available at 50mm and 100mm?

So, either way, which type should I get?

[Buschmaster]

I'm so radical that I'm going to get flamed, but I wouldn't suggest buying a macro lens at all at least to start. Macro lenses have two 'special features' as I understand it. --- The helicoid has more travel for closer focusing, and they are corrected for 'flatness of field.' No flatness of field is very important if you plan on photographing postage stamps or other flat objects. It does nothing for you if you are going out in the garden to photo graph an insect because they aren't flat anyway.

Therefore the reasonable way to enter the world of macro photography
is with extension tubes, or a single helicoid tube. Far less expensive.

That said, I agree with you 'longer is better' for macro photography because
you need the working space to get the light on the object.

depth of field (actually lack thereof) is the killer in macrophotography, and the remedy for that is more light so you can stop down.

If you have a ring light you can use a 50mm decently, but I am aware of no compatble ring light with the K10D so presumably the extra working distance
will give you more options for getting enough light on the subject so you can stop down to where you need to.

One of my 'sore points' with pentax is that the obsoleted all of their flashes except the new G series and there is no G series ring light leaving macro photographers in a swamp.

Can I get the same quality? Because I've been exploring macro photography for a while and really enjoy it with my point and shoot as well as as good as it can get with the kit lens...

[carpents]

Can I get the same quality? Because I've been exploring macro photography for a while and really enjoy it with my point and shoot as well as as good as it can get with the kit lens...

If close working distance is a problem with a 50mm macro (I've never owned one) then extension tubes/helicoids are going to be even worse. I've gotten some excellent results with a 50mm lens on extension tubes, but at decent (macro) magnification you're damn near on top of your subject.

Anyway, my only other input is that the FA 50/2.8 Macro is, with exception of the FA 100/2.8 Macro, the ugliest lens ever produced by any manufacturer. It is one continuous, phallic piece of gray plastic.

[Buschmaster]

With extension tubes I can't get as good of image quality especially for non-macro shots, from what I've seen. Huge disadvantage. Plus I'd still have to buy an extra lens... Hm. I don't know if I like that business. Are there any sharp zoom macros at all? That are at least 1:2 or better? Even though I really want 1:1

I like being on top of my subject sometimes. I need to play around with 50mm and see what it's like, like how close I have to get. But would you guys, 50 or 100 aside, prefer the A, FA, or D-FA?

It doesn't matter what it looks like, it only matters what the pictures look like.

From reviews I've read, the FA 50mm is tack sharp and one of the sharpest lenses produced.

Thoughts?

[Mechan1k]

I just picked up my Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro lens today.
Looking forward to playing with it as well.
Will be my first foray into Macro Photography.

[little laker]

Buschmaster,

Just a thought, but if your on a budget a M 50mm f2 is a nice lens that shouldn't cost all that much.
I'm surprised that I didn't see any listed on my normal used lens sites
I haven't looked at the marketplace on this site.

And with a 49mm reverse ring it'll make a fine affordable macro alternative
There's a reverse adapter for $15.00 here.
General Brand | Reverse Adapter Pentax K to 49mm | AV49PK | B&H

[Abbazz]

Macro lenses have two 'special features' as I understand it. --- The helicoid has more travel for closer focusing, and they are corrected for 'flatness of field.'

The main feature of macro lenses is that they are corrected for all kind of aberrations at close range. It is impossible to have perfect correction of all aberrations over the whole distance range. Non macro lenses are usually optimized for shooting at infinity or around their hyperfocal distance. When used for close focusing (with extension tubes or bellows), they tend to exhibit all kind of aberrations, and not only a lack of flatness of field.

Some lenses are worse than others (the FA 50/1.4 exhibits a lot of aberrations when used below 25cm), but a macro lens is always better for close range shooting. OTOH, a non macro lens usually yields better results at infinity.

A good approach to allow for non macro lenses to retain a good correction of all aberrations at close range would be to use two lenses, one mounted in the normal way on the camera and the second one mounted reversed on the filter thread of the first one with the help of a special reverse coupling adapter.

Cheers!

[Buschmaster]

I just picked up my Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro lens today.
Looking forward to playing with it as well.
Will be my first foray into Macro Photography.

Oh, be sure to let me know!!

The most I want to spend is probably around $300. But if a lens really stands out I'll go a bit more. So looking at the prices on ebay this lens would be just about right.

Buschmaster,

Just a thought, but if your on a budget a M 50mm f2 is a nice lens that shouldn't cost all that much.
I'm surprised that I didn't see any listed on my normal used lens sites
I haven't looked at the marketplace on this site.

And with a 49mm reverse ring it'll make a fine affordable macro alternative
There's a reverse adapter for $15.00 here.
General Brand | Reverse Adapter Pentax K to 49mm | AV49PK | B&H

So I could only put a 50mm lens on this thing? So then I'd still have to buy a 50mm lens... and why not buy a 50mm macro lens at that point.

I know I know, you said that lens would be a budget lens, but I still think the autofocus would have a few nice advantages, like taking non-macro pictures with family or things like that.

The main feature of macro lenses is that they are corrected for all kind of aberrations at close range. It is impossible to have perfect correction of all aberrations over the whole distance range. Non macro lenses are usually optimized for shooting at infinity or around their hyperfocal distance. When used for close focusing (with extension tubes or bellows), they tend to exhibit all kind of aberrations, and not only a lack of flatness of field.

Some lenses are worse than others (the FA 50/1.4 exhibits a lot of aberrations when used below 25cm), but a macro lens is always better for close range shooting. OTOH, a non macro lens usually yields better results at infinity.

A good approach to allow for non macro lenses to retain a good correction of all aberrations at close range would be to use two lenses, one mounted in the normal way on the camera and the second one mounted reversed on the filter thread of the first one with the help of a special reverse coupling adapter.

Cheers!

If I don't win this auction for a 50mm FA, I may go ahead and try and get the 70-300mm Sigma APO macro. It only has 1:2 but that's better than the kit lens, and it would have the correction because it says macro in the name, correct?

[Tom M]

Hands down...

Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro

Stunning!

Oh and, don't think you're gonna be auto-focusing either. Manual focus lenses rule the macro world.

[RBellavance]

Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro

Stunning!

I agree it is stunning, in IQ as well as build quality, and I'm really glad I was able to get one. But it will be much harder to find now that traderjim has run out of his new old stock.

[Tom M]

I agree it is stunning, in IQ as well as build quality, and I'm really glad I was able to get one. But it will be much harder to find now that traderjim has run out of his new old stock.

It's estimated that for a company to produce that lens today, it would cost nearly $2000... It truly is top-notch IQ and Build quality.

[Buschmaster]

Hands down...

Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro

Stunning!

Oh and, don't think you're gonna be auto-focusing either. Manual focus lenses rule the macro world.

I mean auto-focusing for non-macro shots with a macro lens. I always mf on a macro shot.

Where can I look to get one of these and what would I expect to pay?