Help with Macro selection

rmtagg · 03-13-2008, 10:16 AM

Hi,
I got a K10d last Aug and love it! I have a 70-210 5.6 macro lens from a 35 mm camera. I am getting older and can't seem to hold still as long now so I would like to get something a little faster. I don't have a lot of money to spend on a new lens so I thought I would ask for suggestions. This pic is an ex of what I typically use the lens for and I do need crisp sharp images. Any help is appreciated.

aegisphan · 03-13-2008, 10:57 AM

Hi Rosemary,
Welcome to the forum. What's your primary subject? What's your budget? We need to know in order to provide a fitting solution. I also assume that you don't need an AF macro. Tripod is also a must to achieve this kind of magnification (unless you photograph fast moving subjects). Personally, I choose 90-100ish macro. But if you're constraint in budget and working with still subject then other members can suggest you a good 50ish macro.

afs760bf · 03-13-2008, 10:57 AM

If you can find yourself a Kiron (AKA Vivitar Series 1, AKA Lester A Dine) 105mm f2.5 macro, you'll get one of the best macro lenses around for a good price. They made an A version of the lens, but no auto-focus, which is pretty bothersome for a macro, anyway.

Failing that, probably the next most reasonable is a Tamron SP 90mm macro.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-13-2008, 11:05 AM

I would suggest a dedicated macro lens, after looking at your superb example. There are some really good ones out there. I have and love the Pentax M 100/4 macro, even though it only goes to 1:2 without an extension tube. With the 50mm tube I have, it becomes a lens limited to 1:2 to 1:1. At 1:1, you fill the sensor with something 16x24 mm (.63 inches by .94 inches). At 1:2, it is filled with something about 32x48mm (1.25" x 1.9").

I am usually taking pictures out in the field, so I really appreciate the snap-in-focus available with the manual focus macro lens. The technique is to set the magnification on the lens using the scale, then with the camera in AF.S, hold the shutter release down and slowly approach the subject until the camera fires.

With an M lens, I am restricted to manual exposure as well, but the meter will give me an idea of what I need. I have not yet "calibrated" my lens to see what the metering is like, but I have done it with my 400 M lens, and it is not that difficult.

For my use, I would prefer an A series lens, which would allow me more exposure options, but I will stay with the manual focus.

As others say, your results may vary.

rmtagg · 03-13-2008, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by afs760bf

If you can find yourself a Kiron (AKA Vivitar Series 1, AKA Lester A Dine) 105mm f2.5 macro, you'll get one of the best macro lenses around for a good price. They made an A version of the lens, but no auto-focus, which is pretty bothersome for a macro, anyway.

Failing that, probably the next most reasonable is a Tamron SP 90mm macro.

I have a few hundred to spend on the macro lens but I will save for what I need if necessary. I am pretty new to photography so I don't really know what I need. I know the lens I have is slow and need something faster. I also need a lens that produces excellent quality photos. I will be taking pictures mostly of flowers with this lens and I love getting close. The closer the better.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-13-2008, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by rmtagg

I have a few hundred to spend on the macro lens but I will save for what I need if necessary. I am pretty new to photography so I don't really know what I need. I know the lens I have is slow and need something faster. I also need a lens that produces excellent quality photos. I will be taking pictures mostly of flowers with this lens and I love getting close. The closer the better.

Rosemary, for a few hundred dollars, you can buy a pretty good dedicated macro lens. I would watch the marketplace in these forums. The prices are fair, and the people seem to be selling some stuff so they have cash to buy more stuff, rather than try to make a killing.

rmtagg · 03-13-2008, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by aegisphan

Hi Rosemary,
Welcome to the forum. What's your primary subject? What's your budget? We need to know in order to provide a fitting solution. I also assume that you don't need an AF macro. Tripod is also a must to achieve this kind of magnification (unless you photograph fast moving subjects). Personally, I choose 90-100ish macro. But if you're constraint in budget and working with still subject then other members can suggest you a good 50ish macro.

I haven't used a tripod for my macro work yet and where I will be doing a lot of shooting they don't allow tripods. I got lucky and was approved to take and submit pictures of flowers at a famous tourist garden. I am not sure what the difference is between what I will get with a auto focus or manual focus lens?????? As I said I am pretty new but am making like a sponge!

aegisphan · 03-13-2008, 11:58 AM

Some people do use their macro lens as a portrait lens so autofocus might come in handy. But if it's just for macro work, then manual focus would be your best option (cheap and sharp).

Seem like you do more flora macro than insect one. You can get by with a 50mm macro if you can find a cheap one below $100. Above that, I would suggest going with at least a 90mm macro. Here is my list of suggestion

Vivitar Series 1 or Tokina 90mm
Tamron SP 90mm
Vivitar Series 1 or Kiron or Lester Dine 105mm
Panagor or Elicar or Spiratone or Kiron 90mm (these can be had for a little more than $100)

Personally, I've used the first 3 options, and I can assure that they're very sharp. But they cost more than the last option.

Note that, by using a dedicated macro lens, you have more flexibility/ease of use than other cheaper alternatives (close up filter, reverse ring, macro coupler...).

Albert suggests you to check out our marketplace for a used one, and I think that's a good idea. I'm going to sell my Vivitar Series 1 105 macro soon after a few more tests. So if you can wait, it will pop up in the marketplace in a day or two.

tybeck · 03-13-2008, 12:00 PM

I can vouch for the Marketplace on this forum. I picked up a Pentax A 100mm /4 Macro for $250 and a old Takumar SMC 50mm /4 M42 with close-up lenses and extension tubes for $150. So for not too much money you can get some nice buys. Both very good lens, nice and sharp. The prices were reasonable for the market.

rmtagg · 03-13-2008, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by tybeck

I can vouch for the Marketplace on this forum. I picked up a Pentax A 100mm /4 Macro for $250 and a old Takumar SMC 50mm /4 M42 with close-up lenses and extension tubes for $150. So for not too much money you can get some nice buys. Both very good lens, nice and sharp. The prices were reasonable for the market.

I will keep an eye on the listings. I just have to make sure I get a lens that will give me sharp images since I will be submitting them for sale. I just wish I had more experience but am trying to learn as fast as I can. Thanks everyone for your help

loudbay · 03-14-2008, 08:14 AM

Just to add a bit more to your choices. There are more affordable lenses out there too. A few of us here on the forum were lucky enough to get some Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro lenses from the Marketplace a month or so ago. Here is an example of that lens. The reviews are very good for it, and if you enjoy getting close then a 50mm lens will do just that. The 50mm lens will give you a somewhat larger depth of field (but less working distance) when compared to a longer focal length lens (e.g 90mm, 105mm) which will keep you further away from your subject, but dof will be somewhat shallower, all else being equal.

Shot with Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro @ f22 1.6 sec, ISO 100 w/ available light in a greenhouse.
Second shot is a 100% crop.
Both 'Smart Sharpened' in CS3. edit: maybe overly so...

Please feel free to ask any more questions before you bite the bullet, drop the hammer, shave the sheep, or whatever you prefer to call parting with your money.

Cheers, Matt

rmtagg · 03-14-2008, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by loudbay

Just to add a bit more to your choices. There are more affordable lenses out there too. A few of us here on the forum were lucky enough to get some Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro lenses from the Marketplace a month or so ago. Here is an example of that lens. The reviews are very good for it, and if you enjoy getting close then a 50mm lens will do just that. The 50mm lens will give you a somewhat larger depth of field (but less working distance) when compared to a longer focal length lens (e.g 90mm, 105mm) which will keep you further away from your subject, but dof will be somewhat shallower, all else being equal.

Shot with Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro @ f22 1.6 sec, ISO 100 w/ available light in a greenhouse.
Second shot is a 100% crop.
Both 'Smart Sharpened' in CS3. edit: maybe overly so...

Please feel free to ask any more questions before you bite the bullet, drop the hammer, shave the sheep, or whatever you prefer to call parting with your money.

Cheers, Matt

How close were you able to get with the 50mm to take these pics

?

loudbay · 03-14-2008, 08:12 PM

rmtagg,

I'm a measly inch away or so at 1:1 magnification. That being said, if the subject can't run away, the dof really is worth the trade off in my opinion. The dof is thin, but nothing like some I've seen from longer focal length lenses. e.g. What do you mean you can't tell it's a flower? Look how sharp that point on the tip of the pistil is.

Matt

Mechan1k · 03-14-2008, 09:23 PM

I am using a Tamron 90mm SP Macro .... and it is very sharp indeed.
I really haven't put that much effort into macro shots ... I have taken a few to test what it is like though ... and from the 100% crops .... it is extremely sharp.

I haven't taken beautiful shots with it ... just close (and only handheld so far) ... if i can find a decent Macro slider head ... I might get into it a bit more.

But so far so good ... and it is a very nice lens for long portrait shots as well. I spendt a bit on it ... but I have found it was worth the $$$$.

rmtagg · 03-14-2008, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Mechan1k

I am using a Tamron 90mm SP Macro .... and it is very sharp indeed.
I really haven't put that much effort into macro shots ... I have taken a few to test what it is like though ... and from the 100% crops .... it is extremely sharp.

I haven't taken beautiful shots with it ... just close (and only handheld so far) ... if i can find a decent Macro slider head ... I might get into it a bit more.

But so far so good ... and it is a very nice lens for long portrait shots as well. I spendt a bit on it ... but I have found it was worth the $$$$.

Thanks for the info...what is a slider head?????? Sorry, I'm a newbie pretty much

03-13-2008, 10:16 AM	#1
rmtagg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Warrington, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,271	Help with Macro selection Hi, I got a K10d last Aug and love it! I have a 70-210 5.6 macro lens from a 35 mm camera. I am getting older and can't seem to hold still as long now so I would like to get something a little faster. I don't have a lot of money to spend on a new lens so I thought I would ask for suggestions. This pic is an ex of what I typically use the lens for and I do need crisp sharp images. Any help is appreciated.

03-13-2008, 11:05 AM	#4
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Dedicated macro I would suggest a dedicated macro lens, after looking at your superb example. There are some really good ones out there. I have and love the Pentax M 100/4 macro, even though it only goes to 1:2 without an extension tube. With the 50mm tube I have, it becomes a lens limited to 1:2 to 1:1. At 1:1, you fill the sensor with something 16x24 mm (.63 inches by .94 inches). At 1:2, it is filled with something about 32x48mm (1.25" x 1.9"). I am usually taking pictures out in the field, so I really appreciate the snap-in-focus available with the manual focus macro lens. The technique is to set the magnification on the lens using the scale, then with the camera in AF.S, hold the shutter release down and slowly approach the subject until the camera fires. With an M lens, I am restricted to manual exposure as well, but the meter will give me an idea of what I need. I have not yet "calibrated" my lens to see what the metering is like, but I have done it with my 400 M lens, and it is not that difficult. For my use, I would prefer an A series lens, which would allow me more exposure options, but I will stay with the manual focus. As others say, your results may vary.

03-14-2008, 08:14 AM	#11
loudbay Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 114	Just to add a bit more to your choices. There are more affordable lenses out there too. A few of us here on the forum were lucky enough to get some Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro lenses from the Marketplace a month or so ago. Here is an example of that lens. The reviews are very good for it, and if you enjoy getting close then a 50mm lens will do just that. The 50mm lens will give you a somewhat larger depth of field (but less working distance) when compared to a longer focal length lens (e.g 90mm, 105mm) which will keep you further away from your subject, but dof will be somewhat shallower, all else being equal. Shot with Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro @ f22 1.6 sec, ISO 100 w/ available light in a greenhouse. Second shot is a 100% crop. Both 'Smart Sharpened' in CS3. edit: maybe overly so... Please feel free to ask any more questions before you bite the bullet, drop the hammer, shave the sheep, or whatever you prefer to call parting with your money. Cheers, Matt Last edited by loudbay; 03-15-2008 at 12:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Macro Flower selection	Squier	Post Your Photos!	6	10-26-2010 10:10 AM
Q on a 2x Converter selection.	arbib	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	11-23-2009 01:31 AM
Help with lens selection	splurf	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	11-20-2009 08:17 AM
Help with lens selection	JamesD	Pentax DSLR Discussion	39	10-30-2007 04:59 PM
Need lens selection help?	DJR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-18-2006 06:58 AM

03-13-2008, 10:57 AM	#2
aegisphan Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Mexico Posts: 815	Hi Rosemary, Welcome to the forum. What's your primary subject? What's your budget? We need to know in order to provide a fitting solution. I also assume that you don't need an AF macro. Tripod is also a must to achieve this kind of magnification (unless you photograph fast moving subjects). Personally, I choose 90-100ish macro. But if you're constraint in budget and working with still subject then other members can suggest you a good 50ish macro.

03-13-2008, 10:57 AM	#3
afs760bf Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Photos: Gallery Posts: 254	If you can find yourself a Kiron (AKA Vivitar Series 1, AKA Lester A Dine) 105mm f2.5 macro, you'll get one of the best macro lenses around for a good price. They made an A version of the lens, but no auto-focus, which is pretty bothersome for a macro, anyway. Failing that, probably the next most reasonable is a Tamron SP 90mm macro.

03-13-2008, 11:08 AM	#5
rmtagg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Warrington, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,271 Original Poster	Originally posted by afs760bf If you can find yourself a Kiron (AKA Vivitar Series 1, AKA Lester A Dine) 105mm f2.5 macro, you'll get one of the best macro lenses around for a good price. They made an A version of the lens, but no auto-focus, which is pretty bothersome for a macro, anyway. Failing that, probably the next most reasonable is a Tamron SP 90mm macro. I have a few hundred to spend on the macro lens but I will save for what I need if necessary. I am pretty new to photography so I don't really know what I need. I know the lens I have is slow and need something faster. I also need a lens that produces excellent quality photos. I will be taking pictures mostly of flowers with this lens and I love getting close. The closer the better.

03-13-2008, 11:13 AM	#6
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by rmtagg I have a few hundred to spend on the macro lens but I will save for what I need if necessary. I am pretty new to photography so I don't really know what I need. I know the lens I have is slow and need something faster. I also need a lens that produces excellent quality photos. I will be taking pictures mostly of flowers with this lens and I love getting close. The closer the better. Rosemary, for a few hundred dollars, you can buy a pretty good dedicated macro lens. I would watch the marketplace in these forums. The prices are fair, and the people seem to be selling some stuff so they have cash to buy more stuff, rather than try to make a killing.

03-13-2008, 11:14 AM	#7
rmtagg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Warrington, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,271 Original Poster	Originally posted by aegisphan Hi Rosemary, Welcome to the forum. What's your primary subject? What's your budget? We need to know in order to provide a fitting solution. I also assume that you don't need an AF macro. Tripod is also a must to achieve this kind of magnification (unless you photograph fast moving subjects). Personally, I choose 90-100ish macro. But if you're constraint in budget and working with still subject then other members can suggest you a good 50ish macro. I haven't used a tripod for my macro work yet and where I will be doing a lot of shooting they don't allow tripods. I got lucky and was approved to take and submit pictures of flowers at a famous tourist garden. I am not sure what the difference is between what I will get with a auto focus or manual focus lens?????? As I said I am pretty new but am making like a sponge!

03-13-2008, 11:58 AM	#8
aegisphan Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Mexico Posts: 815	Some people do use their macro lens as a portrait lens so autofocus might come in handy. But if it's just for macro work, then manual focus would be your best option (cheap and sharp). Seem like you do more flora macro than insect one. You can get by with a 50mm macro if you can find a cheap one below $100. Above that, I would suggest going with at least a 90mm macro. Here is my list of suggestion Vivitar Series 1 or Tokina 90mm Tamron SP 90mm Vivitar Series 1 or Kiron or Lester Dine 105mm Panagor or Elicar or Spiratone or Kiron 90mm (these can be had for a little more than $100) Personally, I've used the first 3 options, and I can assure that they're very sharp. But they cost more than the last option. Note that, by using a dedicated macro lens, you have more flexibility/ease of use than other cheaper alternatives (close up filter, reverse ring, macro coupler...). Albert suggests you to check out our marketplace for a used one, and I think that's a good idea. I'm going to sell my Vivitar Series 1 105 macro soon after a few more tests. So if you can wait, it will pop up in the marketplace in a day or two.

03-13-2008, 12:00 PM	#9
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452	I can vouch for the Marketplace on this forum. I picked up a Pentax A 100mm /4 Macro for $250 and a old Takumar SMC 50mm /4 M42 with close-up lenses and extension tubes for $150. So for not too much money you can get some nice buys. Both very good lens, nice and sharp. The prices were reasonable for the market.

03-13-2008, 12:11 PM	#10
rmtagg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Warrington, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,271 Original Poster	Originally posted by tybeck I can vouch for the Marketplace on this forum. I picked up a Pentax A 100mm /4 Macro for $250 and a old Takumar SMC 50mm /4 M42 with close-up lenses and extension tubes for $150. So for not too much money you can get some nice buys. Both very good lens, nice and sharp. The prices were reasonable for the market. I will keep an eye on the listings. I just have to make sure I get a lens that will give me sharp images since I will be submitting them for sale. I just wish I had more experience but am trying to learn as fast as I can. Thanks everyone for your help

03-14-2008, 01:43 PM	#12
rmtagg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Warrington, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,271 Original Poster	Originally posted by loudbay Just to add a bit more to your choices. There are more affordable lenses out there too. A few of us here on the forum were lucky enough to get some Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro lenses from the Marketplace a month or so ago. Here is an example of that lens. The reviews are very good for it, and if you enjoy getting close then a 50mm lens will do just that. The 50mm lens will give you a somewhat larger depth of field (but less working distance) when compared to a longer focal length lens (e.g 90mm, 105mm) which will keep you further away from your subject, but dof will be somewhat shallower, all else being equal. Shot with Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro @ f22 1.6 sec, ISO 100 w/ available light in a greenhouse. Second shot is a 100% crop. Both 'Smart Sharpened' in CS3. edit: maybe overly so... Please feel free to ask any more questions before you bite the bullet, drop the hammer, shave the sheep, or whatever you prefer to call parting with your money. Cheers, Matt How close were you able to get with the 50mm to take these pics ?

03-14-2008, 08:12 PM	#13
loudbay Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 114	rmtagg, I'm a measly inch away or so at 1:1 magnification. That being said, if the subject can't run away, the dof really is worth the trade off in my opinion. The dof is thin, but nothing like some I've seen from longer focal length lenses. e.g. What do you mean you can't tell it's a flower? Look how sharp that point on the tip of the pistil is. Matt

03-14-2008, 09:23 PM	#14
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	I am using a Tamron 90mm SP Macro .... and it is very sharp indeed. I really haven't put that much effort into macro shots ... I have taken a few to test what it is like though ... and from the 100% crops .... it is extremely sharp. I haven't taken beautiful shots with it ... just close (and only handheld so far) ... if i can find a decent Macro slider head ... I might get into it a bit more. But so far so good ... and it is a very nice lens for long portrait shots as well. I spendt a bit on it ... but I have found it was worth the $$$$.

03-14-2008, 10:26 PM	#15
rmtagg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Warrington, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,271 Original Poster	Originally posted by Mechan1k I am using a Tamron 90mm SP Macro .... and it is very sharp indeed. I really haven't put that much effort into macro shots ... I have taken a few to test what it is like though ... and from the 100% crops .... it is extremely sharp. I haven't taken beautiful shots with it ... just close (and only handheld so far) ... if i can find a decent Macro slider head ... I might get into it a bit more. But so far so good ... and it is a very nice lens for long portrait shots as well. I spendt a bit on it ... but I have found it was worth the $$$$. Thanks for the info...what is a slider head?????? Sorry, I'm a newbie pretty much