Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-01-2008, 07:00 AM   #16
Veteran Member
pentagor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 473
Original Poster
Yes, you used 1/15 of shutter speed. That is pretty slow even for normal (non close up) shots.

02-01-2008, 07:32 AM   #17
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
I always used a 100 macro, but after reading "Close up on nature" by John Shaw, I buought a Nikon 3T diopter to use with Pentax-F 70-210, and found that combo much more practical to use for wildflower and big insects like dragonflies than the fixed focal lenght macro. The optical quality was nearly same, but both of them, the F lens and the Nikon close up are high quality items.

For true macros of little insects, a 100 or 200 macro is better, though...
02-01-2008, 07:41 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
in looking at the cost, e119, to me it costs more than extension tubes, which will give better results assuming you have a relitively good prime, or the cost of a SMC-M 100mm F4 macro used.

I would put the money in a used macro over this solution
02-01-2008, 09:00 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
QuoteOriginally posted by mer Quote
Just buy extension tubes with electronic connections...
I've been looking, haven't found any the past year. do you have a source or brand to suggest?

02-01-2008, 09:38 AM   #20
Senior Member
jslifoaw's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto/Victoria
Posts: 262
The kit lens natively goes to about 1:3 which I found was often sufficient in most cases. I have tried all of the below solutions:

Macro lens (FA 50mm) - by far the most convenient and high quality
Extension tubes - not very practical, but works well for mid length lenses
2x Teleconverter - only useful for native macro lenses (or else quality isn't great)
Reversing ring - high quality, but manual and close working distance

As an economical solution, I recommend a reversing ring with a 28, 35, or 50mm lens. I wasn't impressed with tubes on anything except my FA135, and the teleconverter only worked well on macro lenses.
02-01-2008, 10:13 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston
Posts: 150
js: I've always had the teleconverter option (usually the vivitar 2X macro-focusing TC) recommended highly to me for use with a fast prime (50mm 1.4 or so)....What is it about the TC that makes it less quality for you?
02-01-2008, 10:36 AM   #22
Senior Member
jslifoaw's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto/Victoria
Posts: 262
QuoteOriginally posted by jmbower Quote
js: I've always had the teleconverter option (usually the vivitar 2X macro-focusing TC) recommended highly to me for use with a fast prime (50mm 1.4 or so)....What is it about the TC that makes it less quality for you?
Hi there,
I was actually talking about a conventional 2x teleconverter (in my case the Pentax T6-2x which is supposed to be half-decent). The macro-focusing ones may be pretty good and I can't say I've used one before.

My general impression is that macros with a conventional lens in the normal orientation (i.e. with tubes, or a rear/front converter) is typically not as good as the same lenses reversed or true macro lenses. Since macro lenses are often not particularly cheap, I would elect to go for a reversing ring unless I needed the working distance of adding tubes or a TC to a longer lens (135mm+)

For short lenses, the working distance is always so small that I'd favour the solution with the highest quality (i.e. macro lens or reversing ring).
02-03-2008, 12:08 PM   #23
Forum Member
blinxdk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 50
So.. just to better evaluate the Raynox lens, I tried taking a photo of a few coins.

It's taken with a K10D, Tamron 28-70 1:2.8 and the Raynox DCR-250. With this lens there is some vignetting at 70. Anyways - I think it's pretty sharp for a $50 attachment to your lens.

Jpeg straigt from camera is here: http://cze.dk/moenter.jpg

02-03-2008, 12:21 PM   #24
Site Supporter
maxwell1295's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Long Island, New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,704
I remember seeing some pics taken with those same macro lenses recently. I thought these came out pretty good considering the cost of that setup.

Link: Butterfly Macros (DA50-200 Super!)
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!
k-mount, lense, macro, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best macro lense for a KX? dehanson1 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 11-17-2009 03:28 PM
Noob Question Difference Between a Lense That Does Macro & A True Macro Lense Christopher M.W.T Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 07-19-2009 12:20 AM
Which macro alternative? YJD Photographic Technique 32 08-27-2008 07:15 AM
Alternative to Macro lense pentagor Post Your Photos! 8 02-21-2008 10:26 PM
Macro lense help.... clarenceclose Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 02-12-2007 08:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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