Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-26-2013, 01:50 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,180
That's 1:2 on a 135 film camera. Take into account that APSC cameras have a 2.3 times smaller sensor.

04-26-2013, 02:07 PM   #32
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
Sorry, still trying to understand all the technicalities. So the Pentax-A 1:2 will be more or less magnified on my K-x?
04-26-2013, 05:29 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 471
A 50mm f/2 on the K-x wide open, will have the FOV and DOF of a 75mm lens at f/3 mounted to a full-frame camera.

Last edited by Ikarus; 04-26-2013 at 05:37 PM.
04-26-2013, 08:27 PM   #34
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
While discussing different macro lenses, my friend told me to choose the 35mm over the 50mm b/c I wouldn't be able to get close enough with the 50mm.

If both lenses provide 1:1 mag., then the only difference is that it would be more work, as in you have to physically get closer with the 35mm to get 1:1, correct?

However, the 50mm is significantly cheaper, so couldn't you use a reversing lens or the Raynox snap-on and get 1:1 while not having to get right up to the subject? I will be focusing on more static objects rather than insects most of the time so getting close really won't be an issue. I've read that 90-100mm is better for macro, but that will mean a bigger and more expensive lens and I will already be going over budget if I want to get a true 1:1 macro lens.

Thanks to the wonderful advice here, I am continuing to learn so much but that is not making my decision any easier yet!

04-26-2013, 09:37 PM   #35
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by Giklab Quote
That's 1:2 on a 135 film camera. Take into account that APSC cameras have a 2.3 times smaller sensor.
Well, it's still 1:2 no matter the sensor size. The projected subject will be half the size on the sensor than it's physical size at 1:2 and sensor size just change how much of that projected image actually gets captured.
04-26-2013, 10:54 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,180
My point exactly.
04-27-2013, 12:54 AM   #37
Site Supporter
bassek's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 577
QuoteOriginally posted by bellavida Quote
However, the 50mm is significantly cheaper, so couldn't you use a reversing lens or the Raynox snap-on and get 1:1 while not having to get right up to the subject? I will be focusing on more static objects rather than insects most of the time so getting close really won't be an issue. I've read that 90-100mm is better for macro, but that will mean a bigger and more expensive lens and I will already be going over budget if I want to get a true 1:1 macro lens.
I suggest you go for the old M50/1.7 and extension tubes. This will cost you far less (only available used, but very common) but you will learn a lot from using manual lenses.
You could use a Raynox instead of extension tubes as well.

In addition you get a MF semi-fast fifty for portrait use.

Seb
04-28-2013, 10:21 AM   #38
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
I found a deal on a Pentax SMC D-FA 100 mm F/2.8 lens for around $400 used.....over my budget but seems to be a solid lens with the only con (a big one) being no IF. Is having no internal focus a reason to search for a different lens?

04-28-2013, 10:32 AM   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,830
QuoteOriginally posted by bellavida Quote
I found a deal on a Pentax SMC D-FA 100 mm F/2.8 lens for around $400 used.....over my budget but seems to be a solid lens with the only con (a big one) being no IF. Is having no internal focus a reason to search for a different lens?
Not at all, it's hard to even find a decent macro that's IF. My DA* 60-250 at full reach is the equivalent of 135 on an non-IF lens at 10 Feet. For some things like macro, IF counterproductive. MY best macro glass, the SIgma 70 and Tamron 90 are both non IF as is my Sigma 70-300. and with the WR, at that price, you wouldn't be buying that lens, you'd be stealing it. It is WR isn't it? If not, not such a good deal.
04-28-2013, 10:55 AM   #40
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Not at all, it's hard to even find a decent macro that's IF. My DA* 60-250 at full reach is the equivalent of 135 on an non-IF lens at 10 Feet. For some things like macro, IF counterproductive. MY best macro glass, the SIgma 70 and Tamron 90 are both non IF as is my Sigma 70-300. and with the WR, at that price, you wouldn't be buying that lens, you'd be stealing it. It is WR isn't it? If not, not such a good deal.
It is WR, and thanks so much for the quick response. So very glad I joined these forums; I have learned more here in a few days than I have in a year of owning my camera!
04-29-2013, 09:47 AM   #41
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
Many have suggested that macro is best done with a 90 or 100mm lens for the distance; however I have seen so many amazing photos taken with the FA 50mm f/2.8 (not the DFA version) and many reviewers comment on how it is one of the sharpest Pentax lenses. Does anyone currently use this lens; how is the IQ? Also, what would be a reasonable used price for the FA version of the 50mm macro lens? Thanks!
05-13-2013, 07:02 AM   #42
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
Tried out the Raynox 250 with the kit lens, and was pleasantly surprised! It is significantly closer and it's capabilities would be even more impressive on a dedicated macro lens.

I've been looking around at auctions to try and find a cheap macro lens but have not had a lot of luck so far. What is the best (sharp w/ great bokeh) used macro lens that I can get for under $100-$150 USD? With the lens + Raynox combo, I know I will be happy with the pics I take for a long time.
05-13-2013, 07:44 AM   #43
Senior Member
dboeren's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 148
I don't think any such thing exists. Real macro lenses are high quality and in-demand pieces, and as far as I know nobody really makes lower quality ones that could sell for cheaper. It's either a real macro lens or it isn't. Raynox and other solutions like that ARE the cheap alternative. Nothing wrong with that, I'm expecting my Raynox 150 to arrive today or tomorrow myself but if I get into macro a lot I know I will need to spring for a Tamron 90mm or Pentax 100mm later on down the line.
05-15-2013, 06:11 PM   #44
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Original Poster
What is a good price for a used Sigma 50mm f/2.8 - not the EX DG version, but the old one that I believe is manual focus? Also, how much would be the magnification on a 50mm f/1.7 lens when used with a Raynox 250?
06-22-2013, 09:11 PM   #45
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,914
I nominate the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 MACRO

You can get one on ebay used for almost cheap. It is a sharp 1:1 macro with a nice, flat image. f/2.8 means you get the thick bokeh you want.

I wouldn't buy a Macro lens shorter than 90mm though. Actually 180 or so mm would be nice as it means you're further away from your subject when shooting. Something like the 50mm macro means you are right on top of your subject (not good if your subject is alive and skittish hehhe).
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!
focus, k-mount, k-x, lens, lens for pentax, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just purchased a Prime lens for my K-X jzackery Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 29 08-09-2012 12:38 PM
new to Pentax..suggestions for prime lens for K-x rrwilliams64 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 12-07-2010 07:13 PM
What's the cheap , auto-focus prime lens(es) for K-x? yuwlyuwl Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 38 05-06-2010 02:42 AM
First Prime Lens for new Pentax K-x User birvie Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 26 01-16-2010 05:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 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