[baro-nite]

At any magnification the impact of camera shake is related to the magnification of the image and nothing else

For strictly lateral camera movements, yes. But for rotating the camera away from the subject, the effect of shake is indeed dependent on the FL.

[Fogel70]

For strictly lateral camera movements, yes. But for rotating the camera away from the subject, the effect of shake is indeed dependent on the FL.

This is also easy to see in the OVF.
With my M 100/4 Macro camera shake is worse at 1:2 magnification, than on DA 35/2.8 Macro at 1:1.

[Anvh]

you might not need to stop the lens down as much as you would with longer focal length.

The depth of field depends on the magnification and aperture, with macro you also might want to take into account pupil magnification if you really want to know.

So at for example 1/2 magnification at f/8 it does not matter if it's 35mm or 200mm, DOF is the same.

[Fogel70]

The depth of field depends on the magnification and aperture, with macro you also might want to take into account pupil magnification if you really want to know.

So at for example 1/2 magnification at f/8 it does not matter if it's 35mm or 200mm, DOF is the same.

Maybe it has something to do with perspective, because I often use my DA 35/2.8 wide open for macro, but with 100mm it's usually stopped down to f/8. But it might also be just because it's easier to be creative with the shorter focal length.

[Anvh]

It's only with macro photography, with 1:1 they are trully the same if pupil magnification is also the same but with 1:2 magnification you need to do the calculation but the differnces would be a mm maybe. At least not a differnce you will notice.

Maybe with the 100mm you will often use a higher magnification as with 35mm?

[Fogel70]

Maybe with the 100mm you will often use a higher magnification as with 35mm?

Maybe, but I think magnification mostly will vary with the size of subject, not by variation of focal length. And as my 100mm macro only goes to 1:2, it's more likely I use higher magnification with the DA35.

It even happens I has to put the lens inside a flower when i use 35mm.

[Anvh]

Because of the range i thought it was the other way, some just like to go close and personal =]

[Not a Number]

There is always the Pentax Macrophoto Stand/Lighting Table - the problem would be finding one as it is out of production. It appears to be optimized for a 50mm macro lens. It a can be used with other lenses and the Auto Bellows (K/M/A). See the manual

Manual

[Redundant Banker]

Does anyone have any recommendations for a copy stand that is in production, is not too expensive, is reasonable quality, and is available in the UK?

[slip]

I have both a 50, 70 and 105 macro. I did notice that if you are going to do hand held macro, the 70 does not shake as much so technically you can get sharper shots in lower light. I do like the distance the 105 gives you, but the 70 distance is very good as well. I find my 50 much to close for most live objects

hope this helps

thanks

randy

[geomez]

I have both a 50, 70 and 105 macro. I did notice that if you are going to do hand held macro, the 70 does not shake as much so technically you can get sharper shots in lower light. I do like the distance the 105 gives you, but the 70 distance is very good as well. I find my 50 much to close for most live objects

hope this helps

thanks

randy

Which lens is your 70mm and does it do 1:1?

[slip]

Which lens is your 70mm and does it do 1:1?

It is a Sigma EX 70 2.8 DG macro and yes it is 1:1. It comes with a circular polerizing filter. It is up in the marketplace if you are interested in looking

Thanks

Randy