Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Which of these listed options would you choose?
lens adapters 313.04%
extension tubes 1565.22%
lens reversal adapter 730.43%
combination of these 730.43%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-15-2011, 05:25 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 160
Original Poster
Was wondering is there a way to extend the working distance of the 250? The closest I would like to be to some subjects is about 1 (American/USA) foot. Any other thoughts? Otherwise, it looks like I just might have to go with the 150 for the working distance. I'm pretty much bugphobic to any bug/creepy crawler unless I know for sure what it is, ie: an ant or a small spider, rolly polly(if thats how you spell it) those black things that curl into a ball.

09-15-2011, 06:27 PM   #17
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by CTR01 Quote
Was wondering is there a way to extend the working distance of the 250? The closest I would like to be to some subjects is about 1 (American/USA) foot. Any other thoughts? Otherwise, it looks like I just might have to go with the 150 for the working distance.
In the CHEAP MACRO article is a table of working distances for closeup adapters. The DCR-150 is +4.8dpt (almost +5); the DCR-250 is +8dpt. Whether using those, or stacked cheap meniscus adapters, on any host lens, the effect at specific +dioptre levels is the same: +5dpt has a working distance around 6.5-8 inches, +8dpt has a working distance around 5 inches. This can't be finessed.

There *are* ways to shoot macro at greater working distance. You can spend US$5-8k on an FA*200/4. Right. Or somewhat less on its Sigma counterpart. Still pretty costly. Or for much less, you can put a long tele lens on LOTS of extension (bellows AND tubes). There are a couple of approaches here:

* I have Wollensack 182/4.5 and Eastman 190/4.5 enlarger lenses (edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness) that cost me about ten bucks each. I put them on about 150mm of cheap PK tubes (three sets) and a bellows that extends to 140mm. These let me reach about 1:1.5 magnification at about 8 inches.

* I have a few 200/3.5 camera lenses -- the Focal (Cimko) only cost US$8. I can put it on the same tubes and bellows and reach about 1.25:1 magnification, also at 8 inches. Not as sharp, a bit heavier, a little brighter -- and it leads to this:

* Back in the day, I had an Olympus Pen-FT, a half-frame SLR (images about the same size at APS-C). I had bellows, and tubes, and a TC, and a Spiratone 400/6.3 (and I still have one, cost just US$15 shipped last year). On the Oly I mounted the TC, then about 300mm of extension, then the lens, and supported all that on a shoulder-stock rig. It looked rather like a grenade launcher. Good thing I was in the Army then! Anyway, I'd use that on bright days to shoot closeups of live rattlesnakes in the field, from a safe distance, like about 3-4 yards. I should post a shot of that rig, eh?

My point is, macro-shooting works within certain limitations. Macro usually means getting close. People spend big bucks on longer macro lenses so they CAN work further away. Closeup adapters obey the laws of optics -- put a +8dpt adapter on a 24mm or 50mm or 100mm or 200mm or 300mm lens, the focal length doesn't matter -- its working distance is still about 5 inches. And that's the long answer to your question.
09-15-2011, 06:32 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 160
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
In the CHEAP MACRO article is a table of working distances for closeup adapters. The DCR-150 is +4.8dpt (almost +5); the DCR-250 is +8dpt. Whether using those, or stacked cheap meniscus adapters, on any host lens, the effect at specific +dioptre levels is the same: +5dpt has a working distance around 6.5-8 inches, +8dpt has a working distance around 5 inches. This can't be finessed.

There *are* ways to shoot macro at greater working distance. You can spend US$5-8k on an FA*200/4. Right. Or somewhat less on its Sigma counterpart. Still pretty costly. Or for much less, you can put a long tele lens on LOTS of extension (bellows AND tubes). There are a couple of approaches here:

* I have Wollensack 182/4.5 and Eastman 190/4.5 enlarger lenses (edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness) that cost me about ten bucks each. I put them on about 150mm of cheap PK tubes (three sets) and a bellows that extends to 140mm. These let me reach about 1:1.5 magnification at about 8 inches.

* I have a few 200/3.5 camera lenses -- the Focal (Cimko) only cost US$8. I can put it on the same tubes and bellows and reach about 1.25:1 magnification, also at 8 inches. Not as sharp, a bit heavier, a little brighter -- and it leads to this:

* Back in the day, I had an Olympus Pen-FT, a half-frame SLR (images about the same size at APS-C). I had bellows, and tubes, and a TC, and a Spiratone 400/6.3 (and I still have one, cost just US$15 shipped last year). On the Oly I mounted the TC, then about 300mm of extension, then the lens, and supported all that on a shoulder-stock rig. It looked rather like a grenade launcher. Good thing I was in the Army then! Anyway, I'd use that on bright days to shoot closeups of live rattlesnakes in the field, from a safe distance, like about 3-4 yards. I should post a shot of that rig, eh?

My point is, macro-shooting works within certain limitations. Macro usually means getting close. People spend big bucks on longer macro lenses so they CAN work further away. Closeup adapters obey the laws of optics -- put a +8dpt adapter on a 24mm or 50mm or 100mm or 200mm or 300mm lens, the focal length doesn't matter -- its working distance is still about 5 inches. And that's the long answer to your question.
I see and thanks again for the detailed information, I read that thread but being a dslr newbie some of this stuff is just beyond me...I guess now I hope to find a person and/or company that could rent/lend me a dcr 150 before I actually buy one as I'm an almost broke college kid and dont want to have to deal with return shipping and costs, etc...I've pretty much posted this same thing in the Raynox lens club...sorry for double posting...?
09-15-2011, 07:35 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,342
QuoteOriginally posted by CTR01 Quote
Was wondering is there a way to extend the working distance of the 250? The closest I would like to be to some subjects is about 1 (American/USA) foot. Any other thoughts? Otherwise, it looks like I just might have to go with the 150 for the working distance. I'm pretty much bugphobic to any bug/creepy crawler unless I know for sure what it is, ie: an ant or a small spider, rolly polly(if thats how you spell it) those black things that curl into a ball.
This is what extension tubes are good at. Take a longish tele like a 135 and put 60mm of extension tube behind it

09-15-2011, 08:00 PM   #20
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by CTR01 Quote
I see and thanks again for the detailed information, I read that thread but being a dslr newbie some of this stuff is just beyond me...I guess now I hope to find a person and/or company that could rent/lend me a dcr 150 before I actually buy one as I'm an almost broke college kid and dont want to have to deal with return shipping and costs, etc.
The DCR-150 goes for around US$65. I may be wrong but I rather doubt that shops will rent one. A fairly cheap way to test the effect is to look on eBay for a set of +1+2+4 closeup lenses to fit your Tamron. Its front thread is 62mm, right? With careful shopping, you may get a set for US$20 or so. Stack the +1+4 and you're at DCR-150 strength; stack them all and you're almost at DCR-250 strength. Get a 52-62mm step ring (under US$5) and you can use them on your kit lens too.

A set of PK extension tubes (50mm thick) will only cost about US$8 shipped, but your kit lens isn't really suitable for those as it has no aperture ring. Your Tamron has such a ring, right? Then it's OK for tubes; two sets will take you to over 1:1 magnification at the short end of its range. Such will be the absolute cheapest way for you to go macro.

Again, the pros and cons: A closeup set is fairly cheap, and you keep all lens automation, but the results won't be as brilliant as a Raynox nor a clean as tubes. A Raynox is brilliant and keeps lens automation but isn't really cheap. And tubes are clean and cheap, but you lose lens automation. Ain't no free lunch!
09-15-2011, 08:08 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 160
Original Poster
Ok, well I guess now I just need to compare pictures of the 150 vs the 250 and see if the picture difference is worth being super close to the subjects.
Where abouts could I find (lot of good to awesome) sample pictures? or would the best place to look be the raynox lens club thread?
Thanks again everyone for your input and help!
09-15-2011, 09:10 PM   #22
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,467
I did not complete the survey.

All of the choices are valid depending on cost, need, and subject. I have and use bellows, auxiliary lenses, reverse ring, and dedicated macro lens.


Steve
09-15-2011, 09:26 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 160
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I did not complete the survey.
All of the choices are valid depending on cost, need, and subject. I have and use bellows, auxiliary lenses, reverse ring, and dedicated macro lens.
Steve
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

To everyone else: I just bought the DCR 150 and hope it gets here soon and works as it should!

09-15-2011, 09:39 PM   #24
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by CTR01 Quote
Ok, well I guess now I just need to compare pictures of the 150 vs the 250 and see if the picture difference is worth being super close to the subjects.
Where abouts could I find (lot of good to awesome) sample pictures? or would the best place to look be the raynox lens club thread?
Yup, see the Raynox Club. Just be aware that with either Raynox, your working distance will be in the 100-200mm / 4-8in range. Your Tamron on 300mm extension would let you work further away. It would be clumsy handheld, but that's what your 'pod is for, eh? Good luck!
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!
adapters, forums, k-mount, lens, macro, manfrotto, pentax lens, photography, post, responses, slr lens, tubes
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DOF: Macro lens vs Ext. tube. pcarfan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-24-2009 10:06 AM
For Sale - Sold: A contact TC's modified as 25mm ext. tubes. pcarfan Sold Items 8 10-11-2009 11:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: Everything Macro: Bellows, Ext. Tubes, Macro Lenses MikeDubU Sold Items 12 03-14-2009 07:10 PM
Macro...rings, ext tubes, lens ronald_durst Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-27-2007 03:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 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