Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2011, 02:55 PM   #16
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,844
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jolepp Quote
A budget macro lens would be the Cosina 100mm 1:3.5. Plasticky but optically very decent. This has been sold as Cosina, Phoenix, Promaster and even Pentax; turns up on ebay every once in a blue moon (~$100-150).

Cosina 100mm F1:3,5 MC Makro Lens Reviews - Fixed Focal Lengths - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

Cosina AF 100mm f/3.5 macro (Pentax) - Review / Lab Test Report
Cool, jolepp! Thank you. That looks like a real possibility. I don't mind the cheap build if the IQ is that good.

06-09-2011, 09:57 PM - 1 Like   #17
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
My three cents (inflation): The advantage of an A-type or AF camera macro lens is, easier use of flash. If you intend to use flash, spend the money. Or just stick with the Raynox on an A-type or AF non-macro. All my camera macro lenses are totally manual, so with my (cheap eBay) ringlight and other flashes I use an A-type or AF non-macro lens on A-type extension (de-glassed TC's), or with a Raynox.

If you DON'T need flash support, then the options are:

* Totally-manual camera macro lens, as suggested above. Handy, cheaper than an AF camera macro lens, still usually not cheap. (But I got lucky with mine, heh heh.)

* Various combinations of cheap extension (tubes and/or bellows) and lenses, maybe reversed. These are much discussed on other threads, so I won't blather on now.

* My fave: Cheap (but good) enlarger lenses on cheap extension. Edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness for a pittance; some EL's are literally four for a dime. EL's longer than 80mm can reach infinity focus on all my M42 and PK bellows and so are good for non-macro shooting too.

Yes, camera macro lenses (and EL's) DO resolve and render differently than non-macro lenses, with or without a Raynox. No, the differences may not be noticeable at a casual glance. Alas, some such lenses only perform well with close subjects, not distant ones. Yes, it is good to have various macro options; and some of those options cost very little. Yes, I'm a cheap bastard, so I like cheap macro.
06-10-2011, 04:54 AM   #18
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,844
Original Poster
Thanks for the great info, RioRico! Definitely will keep in mind as I move along. I do want to use flash, and your info is really helpful.

I don't think I want to mess with bellows/tubes/reversing. At least not yet. Being a beginner, I have so many interests and am so overwhelmed with possibilities that I haven't really settled into a particular focus yet (pardon the pun). I do like to dabble with macro images and if I could find a good "inexpensive" macro lens option, I'd jump on it.

The focusing rails mentioned earlier are really cool. I've had my tripod out before and wondered what do people do when the subject moves - just pick the whole thing up and move it? LOL! Might have to get a set.
06-10-2011, 09:10 AM   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by loco Quote
I do want to use flash...
Then the simplest option is to stick with the Raynox. For more magnification, the cheapest option is to get some (1-3) used A-type TC's on eBay, probably about US$20 each, and remove the glass. Or look for a set of A-type macro tubes, but those are more rare and costly. A-type extension (with aperture-control contact pins) won't have AF, but that's usually pretty useless in macro shooting anyway. ANY macro setup will have monstrously thin DOF, as you found with your Raynox. That's just how it goes.

06-10-2011, 12:36 PM   #20
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,844
Original Poster
Thanks, RioRico. Sounds like that would be an inexpensive option.

It seems like the Raynox is a more than adequate option for a beginner like me to at least explore macro. And once I really find whatever inadequacies there are, I can decide if they bug me enough to spend more money on lenses and such.
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!
flickr, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax lens, raynox, sharpness, slr lens, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Raynox macro converter on 50mm lens? ratm4484 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-05-2011 04:50 PM
Raynox lens for macro shooting Gary G Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 11-19-2010 08:43 AM
For Sale - Sold: Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Lens (Worldwide) ChipB Sold Items 2 10-26-2010 12:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: K10D, DA 35mm Macro, 2x Macro, 360FGZ Flash, 70-210mm f4, m42 adapter and lens drivel Sold Items 19 08-19-2008 04:53 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Vivitar 100mm f3.5 Dedicated Macro PK-A Lens with 1:1 Matching Adapter Youngster Sold Items 2 03-10-2008 08:36 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 PM. | 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