[RioRico]

Thanks Rio once again. People like you are simply awesome. you can go to any extent, to help people regarding their query.

It keeps me busy, eh?

[civilian]

It keeps me busy, eh?

thats your way of thinking
have you ever thought of having the list of your lenses in your signatures.......
I think I have got my macro issue sorted, this thread should be closed...

[RioRico]

have you ever thought of having the list of your lenses in your signatures.......

Insufficient space and onerous maintenance. My current inventory is 235 lenses, maybe 90% keepers. (Ditto with my 45 cameras). And I'd be ashamed to admit to some of them!

Explanation: I'm a lens and camera dealer on eBay when I have the time. I have virtually no disposable income, so if I want to buy something, I must first sell something else. I've sold about 1/3 of the cameras and lenses I've had, which certainly helps pay for the keepers!

But the inventory is constantly in flux, and accurately listing them here would just be too great a chore. So I'll just keep "TOO MANY" in my signature.
_______________________________________

NOTE: If 235 lenses sounds like a lot, consider this: A survey was held awhile back on the ManualFocusLenses site. Members there owned an AVERAGE of over 100 lenses each. One admitted to over 1500 lenses. There's a toy camera collector who also announces possessing thousands of cams. I am small-fry in comparison.

And then there's my well-to-do brother-in-law, not a member here. He collects vintage gear. No, not collects; he accumulates. He has dozens each of Leica, Hasselblad, other high-end bodies and lenses, and zillions of old view cameras, all shrink-wrapped and sitting in his basement. Untold hundreds or thousands of pricey objects just lie there! His widow-to-be assures me that after he drinks himself to death, *I* will get to dispose of them. Hay Fred, have some more vodka!

[newarts]

I have these lenses :
Primes : DA 15 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, FA 43 Ltd
Zooms : DA*16-50, DA* 50-135

I need a macro converter for any of these lenses (preferably, Primes)
what adapter/converter should I buy, to achieve best possible Macro shots, second only to dedicated Prime lenses.
please suggest !!!!

Like others I think you'd benefit from a newer 1:1 macro lens.

An achromatic diopter would be suitable for your prime lenses; I suggest Raynox over Marumi - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-field-accessories/183661-ra...arumi-5-a.html . A Raynox lens can give excellent results - see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html For your prime lenses the Raynox DCR 250 is suitable. It will have a working distance of about 125mm.

For a lens with a 49mm filter thread, I recommend that you buy a 49-52mm step-up adapter ring (a Raynox will usually fit a 49mm filter thread but it is a tight fit). Another solution is to remove the Raynox from its snap-on adapter and use a 49-43mm step-down adapter ring & use the Raynox like a normal screw mount filter.

A "type A" extension tube might be a good option for you - they preserve your flash and auto aperture functions and do not interfere with your already excellent optics. They are rare and relatively costly but it is very easy to make one by purchasing an inexpensive used Pentax mount "type A" teleconverter and removing the lens element. The "A type" designation means the TC has electrical contacts. A 2X Teleconverter is usually about 25mm long.

"Auto" for a Pentax mount Teleconverter does NOT mean there are electrical contacts.

Dave

[Marc Sabatella]

I wanted to say "BELLOWS"......Raynox 250 spec shows it to be suitable for 52mm to 67mm filter size. whereas FA43 is 49mm. will it fit ? is there any option to get 1:1 magnification ?

The 52-67 spec is for the included clip on adapter. I tossed that and bought a 43-49 stepping ring, which makes the whole thing much smaller too.

You can get 1:1 with the Raynox 150 or 250, but not paired with any of the lenses you use. As I indicated, you need a telephoto to get the most magnification out of a closeup lens, but your telephoto is large enough that I fear you'd get vignetting if you tried to use it with a Raynox. Perhaps not with the Marumi, though, which might make it worth whatever slight difference in quality there is.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a compact kit, I'd suggest leaving the 50-135 at some and replacing it with something like the 55-300, or a 135 prime, and this would work extremely well with the Raynox 150.

Read a review of Raynox vs Marumi. and is stated Raynox as better option

Interesting; I hadn't yet seen anyone do a direct comparison. Do you have any links to comparisons you found enlightening?

[newarts]

......
Interesting; I hadn't yet seen anyone do a direct comparison. Do you have any links to comparisons you found enlightening?

Marc, I bought a Marumi +5 (200) specifically to compare it with the Raynox DCR 150. The Raynox was certainly better regarding both flare and resolution with the DA 55-300 wide open. The results are here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-field-accessories/183661-ra...arumi-5-a.html

I have not made any measurements at lower focal lengths or with a shorter primary lens but based on my results I'm hesitant to recommend a Marumi (the +5 , 200mm version at least.)

Dave in Iowa

[civilian]

Interesting; I hadn't yet seen anyone do a direct comparison. Do you have any links to comparisons you found enlightening?

Marck, I was also referring to the comparison done by new arts
don't you think if I need to get another lens, that you mentioned (55-300, or a 135 prime), I'll be better off buying a 100mm macro ?

---

Last edited by civilian; 05-14-2012 at 02:25 AM.

[Abbazz]

Marc, I bought a Marumi +5 (200) specifically to compare it with the Raynox DCR 150. The Raynox was certainly better regarding both flare and resolution with the DA 55-300 wide open. The results are here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-field-accessories/183661-ra...arumi-5-a.html

I concur that the Raynox DCR 150 is clearly better than any other add-on diopter on the market. Both models of Raynox adapters feature high quality optics with three multicoated glass elements, while other diopters only have one or two elements, which are not always multicoated. The difference in terms of results is quite obvious.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[RioRico]

don't you think if I need to get another lens, that you mentioned (55-300, or a 135 prime), I'll be better off buying a 100mm macro ?

These are different tools for different purposes. The 55-300 and a 135 prime can be USED for close or macro work. A 100 macro is DESIGNED for close edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness, and can also be used for short tele work. IMHO the basic decision point is: how much do image edges matter, and what are you willing to pay for perfect edges, and for convenience? There are cheap ways to get clean sharp edges (like enlarger lenses on extension), but they're not as simple and easy as a costly macro lens.

[Marc Sabatella]

Marc, I bought a Marumi +5 (200) specifically to compare it with the Raynox DCR 150. The Raynox was certainly better regarding both flare and resolution with the DA 55-300 wide open. The results are here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-field-accessories/183661-ra...arumi-5-a.html

Thanks - I hadn't seen that! Definitely looks like no contest, which rather surprises me, but it looks pretty incontrovertible.

[newarts]

Thanks - I hadn't seen that! Definitely looks like no contest, which rather surprises me, but it looks pretty incontrovertible.

I was floored when I saw the results.

The first shot showing the bad flare was certainly aggravated by the lighting conditions (areas surrounding the image were also very bright) but the Raynox was hardly affected & It took a really long hood to bring the Marumi even close to ok to the Raynox' performance!

The resolution test was similarly in favor of the Raynox, although someone said 300mm might be too long for the Marumi.

Unfortunately, I had been recommending the Marumi as an alternative to the Raynox based on positive user reviews. I was in the midst of a long thread on dpreview, recommending the Marumi to someone when I decided to buy one and test it; fortunately I was able to correct my error in time.

I've learned some big lessons from this experience.

Dave

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

If close-up lenses are considered, also look at the 250D and 500D close-up lenses from Canon - the 250D is recommended for 30-135mm lenses, and the 500D for longer 70-300mm lenses (they change focusing distance to 25cm and 50cm, respectively, so the focal length recommendation is based on that). These come in different sizes, so you should get the largest size you'll need and step up rings.

A macro lens has the advantage of having a flat field of view, which is great if you are photographing flat subjects - stamps, coins, etc. A close-up filter is nice for being easy to mount and unmount - extension tubes are a bit too much trouble to be changed in the field and then they restrict you to macro work. There are also lenses with native close up ability that fall between regular lenses and real macro ones. Plenty of choices.

[RioRico]

A macro lens has the advantage of having a flat field of view, which is great if you are photographing flat subjects - stamps, coins, etc. A close-up filter is nice for being easy to mount and unmount - extension tubes are a bit too much trouble to be changed in the field and then they restrict you to macro work. There are also lenses with native close up ability that fall between regular lenses and real macro ones. Plenty of choices.

One kinky trick: Thread a mount-reversal ring onto the front of a prime. Shoot as normal. For close work, just flip the lens over! Any reversed lens has a flat field.

Another trick: Get (real cheap!) an A35-80/4-5.6. On normal use it'ss maybe the worst lens Pentax ever sold, but it's pretty decent when reversed with a 49mm-PK mount reversal ring. Magnification is about 0.5x-2x at close focus, and at 80mm it focuses past infinity -- a true macro-zoom! Use a section of cheap PK macro tube as a lens hood.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

One kinky trick: Thread a mount-reversal ring onto the front of a prime. Shoot as normal. For close work, just flip the lens over! Any reversed lens has a flat field.

I tried this with a 28mm, but focusing range was small and working distance was short too. Plus, it requires removing the lens from the mount, which I avoid to do outdoors. This is why I prefer lenses with macro or closeup capability, or just a closeup filter. I use extension tubes sometimes, but then I just use them for macro work. In general, I do more closeup than real macro work, so I don't need magnification more than 1:1 and even 1:2 covers 90% of my needs.

Another trick: Get (real cheap!) an A35-80/4-5.6. On normal use it'ss maybe the worst lens Pentax ever sold, but it's pretty decent when reversed with a 49mm-PK mount reversal ring. Magnification is about 0.5x-2x at close focus, and at 80mm it focuses past infinity -- a true macro-zoom! Use a section of cheap PK macro tube as a lens hood.

That is very interesting behavior. And it is also interesting that that lens takes 49mm filters - must be pretty compact. Even the APS-C kit lenses are 52mm.

[RioRico]

One kinky trick: Thread a mount-reversal ring onto the front of a prime. Shoot as normal. For close work, just flip the lens over!

I tried this with a 28mm, but focusing range was small and working distance was short too. Plus, it requires removing the lens from the mount, which I avoid to do outdoors.

Yes, 28mm is too short, and the trick sucks amid dusty environments. But it's cheap!

Any prime reversal trick requires shooting at the PK register distance of ~4.5cm, too close for much outdoor work. Zooms are another matter. The A35-80/4-5.6 trick I mentioned has a wide range of working distances. I'm testing it right now with a 49mm-PK mount reversal ring whose base is about 4.5mm thick. I'm measuring CFD (close focus distance) from the lens front, and the magnification:

* At 35mm: CFD= ~6cm, M= ~2:1
* At 80mm: CFD= ~17cm, M= ~1:2.5

And it reaches infinity focus at around 75mm. The lens is rotten when used normally, but decent when reversed. A nifty fifteen-bucks macro solution, eh?

These numbers are ONLY for this lens with this adapter. Similar M- or A-type cheap midrange zooms will give different results. A 28-70 or 35-70 likely won't reach infinity focus. A 28-90 will likely go 'way beyond infinity, as well as having a longer CFD and less magnification at 90mm, but I'm too lazy to test that right now.

Or am I? Aww, what the hell, let's see what happens! I'll put my Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90/3.5-5.6 onto a 55mm-PK mount-reversal ring with a base about 2mm thick.

* At 28mm: CFD= ~5cm, M= ~2.5:1
* At 90mm: CFD= ~28cm, M= ~1:4

And it also reaches infinity focus at around 75mm. The Quantaray is rather better than the A35-80 when used normally, but it's still no prize-winner. I'll leave testing of 70mm zooms to someone else. Any volunteers?

So, here's a kewl way to repurpose those cheap midrange zooms with aperture rings: flip'em!