[WA-surfer]

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.

---

Hi guys,

Just wondering which of my existing lens is best to give some macro photography a go (ie insects, water drops)? I know there are dedicated lens out there which shine in this area but please don't give me another case of LBA! I'm just interested in which lens I should use to give it a crack.

I'm thinking the Sigma 17-70 is the only lens which specifically refers to any kind of macro, but open to suggestions.

thanks

[manacho2005]

None of those are true macro lenses, but if you're trying not to spend a lot, get yourself a reversing filter for that Takumar.

[WA-surfer]

None of those are true macro lenses, but if you're trying not to spend a lot, get yourself a reversing filter for that Takumar.

OK, excuse my ignorance....

I'm assuming you mean something like this with a 49mm thread for the Takumar?
# Macro Coupler Reverse Ring 49mm / 42mm (1.0) M42 | eBay

how do you mount the Takumar? doe the reverse ring go onto the body or another lens?

[Kozlok]

Not to hijack your thread, but how does the Sigma 17-70 compare to the DA 18-135? Both focus kind of close, maybes use shoot some shots with both?

[jimr-pdx]

The original 17-70 goes almost 1:2, but later ones do a bit less. Oh boy that diopter would cost some cash though it was a 72mm filter size as I recall!

In fact going that way with your DA70 would be an inexpensive choice; I have the Promaster 100/3.5 macro that comes with a 49mm diopter to achieve 1:1. Maybe today I'll try it on my DA70 and check in later with some feedback? Truly though, the reverse adapter would be best optically I expect; the Takumar screws the camera onto the filter ring and becomes a serious closeup lens.

[Bob from Aus]

I have the older 17-70. I also have three modern macros (Ltd 35mm, 100mm wr and sigma 70mm) and two M42 macros. My 17-70 does a really great job at closeup. While it can't go 1:1 there are not many shots where you want to go that small. If you are interested in macro and have the 17-70 supposed macro my experience with the lens is exceptional considering its a zoom. For those who have never used the 17-70 for closeup work you will be surprised just how good it is.

[WA-surfer]

Not to hijack your thread, but how does the Sigma 17-70 compare to the DA 18-135? Both focus kind of close, maybes use shoot some shots with both?

I haven't really used my 17-70mm much since the 18-135 came with my K30. I reckon I've give them both a go tomorrow and compare.

The original 17-70 goes almost 1:2, but later ones do a bit less. Oh boy that diopter would cost some cash though it was a 72mm filter size as I recall!

In fact going that way with your DA70 would be an inexpensive choice; I have the Promaster 100/3.5 macro that comes with a 49mm diopter to achieve 1:1. Maybe today I'll try it on my DA70 and check in later with some feedback? Truly though, the reverse adapter would be best optically I expect; the Takumar screws the camera onto the filter ring and becomes a serious closeup lens.

Yeah, the test with the DA70 would be interesting. Keen to see how you go.

I have the older 17-70. I also have three modern macros (Ltd 35mm, 100mm wr and sigma 70mm) and two M42 macros. My 17-70 does a really great job at closeup. While it can't go 1:1 there are not many shots where you want to go that small. If you are interested in macro and have the 17-70 supposed macro my experience with the lens is exceptional considering its a zoom. For those who have never used the 17-70 for closeup work you will be surprised just how good it is.

thanks, yeah mine is the old version f2.8-4.5. I will get it out tomorrow and give it a whirl I reckon, and probably compare it against the 18-135mm.

[Not a Number]

You can get a set of Asahi Pentax extension tubes usually around $20 USD. Your 50mm f/1.4 with all three tubes (according to the manual) will give you 1.28x. However you won't have much working distance from the lens to object. When photographing insects it is best to have more distance so you don't "spook" the subject. It also makes lighting easier. The 3 tubes together give an extension of 57mm. Sensor to subject distance is 7.77 inches (19.72 cm).

Asahi Pentax Manual for Extension Tubes, Bellows Unit, Copy Stand and Microscope Adapter (password Pentax)

Using tubes on your K-mount lens might be difficult if they don't have aperture rings unless you can find the more expensive tubes with contacts.

[manacho2005]

Check out this guy's Flickr. He's been in National Geographic for his macro work, and he only uses a Pentax KX and 50mm f1.7 with reversing filter.

Flickr: Thomas Shahan's Photostream

[WA-surfer]

You can get a set of Asahi Pentax extension tubes usually around $20 USD.

Thanks for the info on extension tubes and the link to the manual. I've learnt quite a bit from this thread.

Check out this guy's Flickr. He's been in National Geographic for his macro work, and he only uses a Pentax KX and 50mm f1.7 with reversing filter.

Flickr: Thomas Shahan's Photostream

Wow! that's awesome. I note that he stated "The image above is a single shot taken with a 50mm prime reversed on a set of extension tubes." so it looks like he uses a combination of extension tubes and the reversing filter which have both been flagged in this thread.

[Bob from Aus]

Thanks for the info on extension tubes and the link to the manual. I've learnt quite a bit from this thread.

I am not sure if the tubes were properly explained. As far as I am aware there are no tubes that can be purchased new that will automatically operate your lens. I suspect the cheap tubes that can be purchased will not even stop down the iris. Auto tubes were once produced and occasionally they come up second hand.

I purchased a cheap tele converter and removed the lens to make a extension tube. However I found it more successful to shoot macro with a teleconverter.