[dinneenp]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

$190 surprisingly can take you REALLY FAR!

Here are just a few options:
Really Cheap Setups (Add A Good Manual Flash Like The YN-560 For About $65 More To The Following)
- $150 give or take a few bucks | PK Extension Tubes, Pentax-M 100mm Macro <- (Lowell mentioned these two things earlier - using the tubes you will get better than 1:2)
- $70 give or take a few bucks | PK Extension Tubes, Pentax-M 50mm (1.7, 2.0, etc)

Really, with the PK extension tubes, you can use any GOOD manual lens (K-Mount) and get great results - the above two is a good start for cheap.

---

Hi,
With the above option I have to focus manually. Will I lose anything else besides that, exposure etc?
Cheers,
Pa.

[joe.penn]

Will I lose anything else besides that, exposure etc?

Yes, with those two setups (any setup with extension tubes without "A" contacts or any manual lens without "A" contacts with exception too M42 lenses) you will have to use in hyper manual mode ("M" Mode) and green-button-meter.



--

[newarts]

I argue that p-ttl auto-flash is valuable for macro; hence I recommend a Cosina 100 AF 3.5 macro lens which would cost about 100eu. (sold under a variety of names like Phoenix, Vivitar, Voightlander....)

I do not know if the Raynox 150 will vignette on your 200:2.8 If it does not vignette it would be good at about 50eu.

A good achromatic mamuri or canon close-up lens of about 5 diopter strength would also be good options for your 200:2.8

[joe.penn]

I argue that p-ttl auto-flash is valuable for macro

Me too - that's why I mentioned the YN-560 which is a full manual flash



--

[jac]

Hood. Not mentioned much but increases micro-contrast. As mentioned, light. No ring flash, on-camera casts a shadow from the length of the lens? Crimped aluminum foil makes a great fill-reflector. Mentioned in passing are really cheap auto-TC's with their glass removed (in less than five minutes with a Swiss Army knife or micro screwdriver.) Solid tripod w/ short center column and legs that spread flat. Alternative is a bag of sand or, I like, a bag of rice and easily washed clothing for crawling around. Nice perspectives from way down there. Infrared or cable release w/ mirror-up if your camera handles it. Or use the two second delay. (Not for animate critters of course.) I do have the DFA 100 WR but also love my twenty year-old Tamron 90mm 1:2.5 52BB Adaptall. The former 'cause it is WR and flat field, NOT for it's AF. A light diffuser for bright, sunny days - cheesecloth strung on a wire hoop is good; my own shadow if I have to. I like natural light and often choose that over my fancy, expensive but great 160 ring-light. Or hand-hold a flash w/a short connecting cable to the hot-shoe for TTL exposure; play around with different angles and fill-flash (read scrunched then flattened aluminum foil here). Chimp a lot; no one's looking.
Go through Ron's list and practice with cheap, stacked, reversed el-cheapo's that for some reason of optics and physics that I neither understand nor care about suddenly become great glass. Try something like that first then move up to the dedicated lenses. But watch out for LBA on the way up! As mentioned, Komine's and Kiron's are a terrific middle ground here.

[joe.penn]

Or hand-hold a flash

Here is one of my diffused handheld flash setups, on top of a handle with a wireless receiver attached, works quite well for a cheap rig...

[newarts]

This http://www.ebay.com/itm/Focal-MC-2X-Tele-Converter-Pentax-KA-Ricoh-KRs -Mint-/380379367924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item58906089f4 with its lens and Ricoh pin removed and your 17-50 lens should give excellent results. Working distance will be six inches or less.

[excanonfd]

Budget about €150/$190 or thereabouts.

If you don't mind MF lenses, Just1MoreDave has following two well regarded macro lenses for sale on the Marketplace: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/162356-sale-p...1-1-macro.html and https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/162565-sale-t...k-adapter.html

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Least expensive MF lens:

Phoenix Telephoto 100mm f/3.5 Macro MF Lens P09031 B&H Photo

Oops, looks like it's no longer available - I hope I had something to do with that

Less expensive old lenses that might fit the budget:

Tamron SP 90/2.5 adaptall
Volna 9

Both are 1:2 magnification only.

The Tamron SP 35-80 adaptall has nice closeup capability as well.

The advantage of a macro lens is versatility - you can quickly switch from a portrait shot to a macro one without having to mount/unmount extension rings or magnification lenses or whatever. But if you want really high magnification, you can skip macro lenses and just go for custom solutions using extension rings, reversed lenses, and flash solutions to go with them.

[RioRico]

I'm glad the CHEAP MACRO article helped. Now to your questions:

1. Extension tubes. I have to focus manually but everything else works as 'normal' (auto exposure etc)?
Can anyone recommend an extension tube, I bought a stupidly cheap one and it was total crap.
2. Reversing ring- will it work on either of my lenses or do I need a 'manual lens'? If so why?
3. Thoughts on Raynox DCR-250/150 with either of my lenses?
4. I suppose a manual focus lens is maybe the best solution wihin my budget...
5. no such thing as a stupid question but where in lenses specs/name does it say how true macro it is
e.g. SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL says max magnification 0.17x
Maximum Magnification (MM) 0.22x?)
and what does 'Maximum Reproduction Ratio' mean?
6. anything else to note?

1: To retain aperture control, get cheap A-type TC's and remove the glass.
2: Any reversed lens should have an aperture ring. Jury-rigging is a pain.
3: The DCR-250 won't provide much magnification with such short lenses.
4: AF is for non-macro shooting. A-type MFs are handy when non-reversed.
5: It it ain't at least 1:2 (0.5x) it ain't macro. Lens marketers lie a lot, eh?
5a: MaxReproRatio is the limit for that lens unless you add extension.
6: What do you mean by "general macro, not insects & floral"? This matters.

About the last: One of my favourite setups is my Novoflex Noflexar 105/3.5 (US$27 shipped) on my M42 Bellowscope ($21). I don't get huge magnification at full extension unless I add tubes, but as-is, I can focus from 11cm-infinity and go to about 1:3 (0.3x). So I consider that a very general-purpose rig. Small and light, too. To work closer, I may just throw the cheap F35-70 (mine was $11) onto my K20D. Its 'macro' mode goes to about 1:3 at 70mm, focusing to 33cm.

So: Do you need "general macro" or just "close focus"?

[dinneenp]

This http://www.ebay.com/itm/Focal-MC-2X-Tele-Converter-Pentax-KA-Ricoh-KRs -Mint-/380379367924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item58906089f4 with its lens and Ricoh pin removed and your 17-50 lens should give excellent results. Working distance will be six inches or less.

thanks for the reply.
Just to clarify:
I use this with my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens BUT you said 'with its lens and Ricoh pin removed'?
I don't quiet follow what you mean, can you please clarify for me?
Also any idea what kind of magnification it'd give me?

Thanks,
Pa.

[joe.penn]

As RioRico mentioned (and someone else on this thread), for the extension tube, get a cheap PKA Teleconverter and take the glass out, that will allow you to get auto exaposure and all (I have a vivitar PKA one on the marketplace for sale, $35 for anyone who is onvolved in this thread).

Also, excanonfd mentioned the Panagor on the marketplace for sale, one of the couple of lenses in the review sections here that has a solid 10 rating, I too have that lens and will eventually add my 10 review - really good macro lens...



-

[dinneenp]

I'm glad the CHEAP 6: What do you mean by "general macro, not insects & floral"? This matters.

Most macro photos that I see in galleries are inscets and flowers.
For me the lens would be an introduction into macro photography; shoot loads of stuf (colourful toothbrush head, eyelashs, eyes, slices of fruit, water drops on car etc).
So I can't say offhand what focal length would appeal to me the most, I suppose an all rounder?

A few people say they bought a macro lens but the novelty wore off quickly. So with this lens I'd see if it's just a novelty for me or an area I'd enjoy and not bore of easily.

I'm sure I'd try out some 'insect and floral' shots too.

cheers,
Pa.

[newarts]

thanks for the reply.
Just to clarify:
I use this with my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens BUT you said 'with its lens and Ricoh pin removed'?
I don't quiet follow what you mean, can you please clarify for me?
Also any idea what kind of magnification it'd give me?

Thanks,
Pa.

Remove the lens inside the TC so it is an empty cylinder. This is very easy to do. Now the TC acts as an extension tube with the proper contacts. We do this because it it a cot effective way to get such a tube.

The Ricoh pin refers to a special pin used with Ricoh mount lenses - I'd avoid it by buying joe.penn' s TC.

The range of magnifications would depend on the length of the TC you started with - I think a typical 2X TC is about 36mm long. That would result in

m = TC.length/Focal.length; about 0.7 - 2x

A drawback of this approach is the working distance will be smaller than one might prefer.

[dinneenp]

Remove the lens inside the TC so it is an empty cylinder. This is very easy to do. Now the TC acts as an extension tube with the proper contacts. We do this because it it a cot effective way to get such a tube.

The Ricoh pin refers to a special pin used with Ricoh mount lenses - I'd avoid it by buying joe.penn' s TC.

The range of magnifications would depend on the length of the TC you started with - I think a typical 2X TC is about 36mm long. That would result in

m = TC.length/Focal.length; about 0.7 - 2x

A drawback of this approach is the working distance will be smaller than one might prefer.

thanks again. Call me slow but just one or two more questions (honestly).
1.
So I could use this alone with my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens- great.
So if I used this at 17mm then wouldn't the magnification ratio be greater than one ( 36/17)? But I imagine the problem is that I'd have to be virtually on top of the item?

2. the light/aperture is halved so I'd have f5.6?

It looks like potentially a very cheap solution. If not I think I'd just buy a manual focus macro lens (thanks for the links so far).

Oh, why can't I be rich so I could just buy an autofocus macro lens that'd be great for kids portraits and macro photography (and a wide angle lens and a K-5...)

Cheers,
pa