Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-24-2014, 07:42 AM   #16
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,491
Clearly a bad macro is much harder to find than a macro whatever lens you get will serve you well.

Clearly (to me) the main decision here is focal length, and whether getting up really close will disturb the subject (e.g. butterflies). Such things are best done with 100mm or more, but flowers and still life will be great with shorter focal lengths. Enjoy your speed-shopping!

03-24-2014, 07:55 AM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,298
Isn't it lovely how all of us are so ready to spend your money for you!

Another option is a Raynox 150, known to pair well with the DA 55-300.
03-24-2014, 07:57 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
I have this Promaster 3.5/100mm and am very happy with it. It's also available under the Vivitar, Cosina, and Phoenix names, and there's an optically identical AF version. There's also this Pentax branded version. If you get it, just make sure the matched 1.1 diopter comes with it. I prefer the manual focus version, because although it's the same exact optics, it's a bit better build quality.
03-24-2014, 10:19 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 140
I'd say the Sigma 70mm macro, but since you already have the DA 70mm Limited I would recommend the DFA 100mm WR

03-24-2014, 10:52 AM   #20
Pentaxian
johnyates's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 1,185
QuoteOriginally posted by Bagga_Txips Quote
And an M50 f1.4
A set of extension tubes plus the above should be more than adequate for your macro needs. Take your wife to dinner with the money you've saved.
03-24-2014, 11:58 AM   #21
Pentaxian
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,607
A lot of people recommend shorter focal length macro lenses for shooting inanimate objects, but I'd still recommend a 90-100mm lens. The problem with shorter focal lengths is you have to get the subject closer to the lens for the same magnification you could get from a further distance with a longer focal length lens. When you get closer you tend to block out the light illuminating the subject.
03-24-2014, 01:41 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,085
QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
When you get closer you tend to block out the light illuminating the subject.
And possibly scare the subject if it's alive.
03-24-2014, 09:35 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
Original Poster
I have a set of really cheapo extension lenses, so I am going to try johnyates's suggestion with my 50 f1.4. I have taken a few shots indoors already, but I am very wobbly these days and it's really hard to find and retain focus.

Thank you everyone for all the suggestions.

03-24-2014, 09:37 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,085
QuoteOriginally posted by Bagga_Txips Quote
I have a set of really cheapo extension lenses, so I am going to try johnyates's suggestion with my 50 f1.4. I have taken a few shots indoors already, but I am very wobbly these days and it's really hard to find and retain focus.

Thank you everyone for all the suggestions.
The tripod is your friend, Bagga!
03-24-2014, 10:01 PM   #25
Pentaxian
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,607
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
The tripod is your friend, Bagga!
And if a tripod doesn't work (macro can force your camera into some weird angles), flash will help freeze the moment. Even in direct sun light it can be hard to stay focused at high magnifications.
03-24-2014, 10:03 PM   #26
New Member
revelstoked's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Revelstoke, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13
If your feeling thrifty, I picked up a Kiron 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 A MC macro on ebay for something like 35 dollars including shipping to Canada. Its quite sharp with min fd 15ish cm. There seems to be a few around still.

Last edited by revelstoked; 03-24-2014 at 10:06 PM. Reason: Addition
03-24-2014, 11:26 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
And if a tripod doesn't work (macro can force your camera into some weird angles), flash will help freeze the moment. Even in direct sun light it can be hard to stay focused at high magnifications.
This is a bit off topic, geomez, but I think our inquirer here has had to make his decision by now. You have both the K-3 and the GR -- perfect! I've been pulling out my hair agonizing over the best present lens options for landscapes and cityscapes on APS-C. Very recently, a correspondent at the digilloyd.com site commented that without a doubt, he was getting better, sharper results from the 16mp GR at the 28mm effective equivalent focal length than he could with his no LP-filter 24mp D7100 at a similar field of view. The close integration factor between excellent lens and sensor on the GR seems to be the prevailing explanation here. Since he publishes few reader comments on his site, and he owns and uses both high end Nikon/Zeiss AND the little GR (his "Camera of the Year 2013", BTW), I can only assume that Lloyd is in full agreement, or close to it; or he wouldn't have published that email.

I have a new, still virginal K-3 here; but the lack of choice in modern primes of overall high performance, optimized for both sharpness border-to-border and a relatively flat field -- as well as being easily totable into the field -- is conspicuous, and frustrating as all get-out to me when considering the core FL's/fields of view for landscape: say, 24mm to 35mm FF-equivalents. I can't believe that the DA 21mm really fills the bill; it simple reflects other design priorities. I do have the DA 12-24mm, about which opinions are split when it comes to my application. I'm just about down to a used GR (assuming I can find a deal with time)... or, grudgingly, the 18-35mm/1.8 Sigma (28-1/2 oz. zoom -- Ugh!). Help! Have you any words of wisdom from the hands-on user perspective? From an effective-FF 42mm on up, I figure I'm in good shape with my present options.
03-24-2014, 11:33 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Bagga_Txips Quote
I currently own... 10-17FE, DA21, 40XS, DA70. Plus 18-55WR, 18-135WR, 55-300. And an M50 f1.4.

Today my wife pointed out that if I want to buy a macro lens before our trip on Friday to photograph peach blossoms, I must buy it tomorrow because we are busy the rest of the week. But I am totally undecided which to buy, so I throw myself open to suggestions. What do you recommend, and why? (I am not very interested in ultra-closeups of insects)
I see a lot of options below the op's initial post, but better definition of what is needed might help

Peach blossoms don't really need true macro, but aside from that something done in a rush is generally never a good decision. Why not just get close up lenses for the 18-55. Spend about $30 on a set of simple diopters, and see what you can do.

If you have already decided and researched macro that is a different story, but from your post that is not apparently the case. I would advise from personal use, that the increased working distance of a100mm macro over anything shorter is worth it
03-25-2014, 12:02 AM   #29
Pentaxian
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
This is a bit off topic, geomez, but I think our inquirer here has had to make his decision by now. You have both the K-3 and the GR -- perfect! I've been pulling out my hair agonizing over the best present lens options for landscapes and cityscapes on APS-C. Very recently, a correspondent at the digilloyd.com site commented that without a doubt, he was getting better, sharper results from the 16mp GR at the 28mm effective equivalent focal length than he could with his no LP-filter 24mp D7100 at a similar field of view. The close integration factor between excellent lens and sensor on the GR seems to be the prevailing explanation here. Since he publishes few reader comments on his site, and he owns and uses both high end Nikon/Zeiss AND the little GR (his "Camera of the Year 2013", BTW), I can only assume that Lloyd is in full agreement, or close to it; or he wouldn't have published that email.

I have a new, still virginal K-3 here; but the lack of choice in modern primes of overall high performance, optimized for both sharpness border-to-border and a relatively flat field -- as well as being easily totable into the field -- is conspicuous, and frustrating as all get-out to me when considering the core FL's/fields of view for landscape: say, 24mm to 35mm FF-equivalents. I can't believe that the DA 21mm really fills the bill; it simple reflects other design priorities. I do have the DA 12-24mm, about which opinions are split when it comes to my application. I'm just about down to a used GR (assuming I can find a deal with time)... or, grudgingly, the 18-35mm/1.8 Sigma (28-1/2 oz. zoom -- Ugh!). Help! Have you any words of wisdom from the hands-on user perspective? From an effective-FF 42mm on up, I figure I'm in good shape with my present options.
I sent you a PM
03-25-2014, 03:45 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,243
QuoteOriginally posted by Bagga_Txips Quote
I currently own... 10-17FE, DA21, 40XS, DA70. Plus 18-55WR, 18-135WR, 55-300. And an M50 f1.4.

Today my wife pointed out that if I want to buy a macro lens before our trip on Friday to photograph peach blossoms, I must buy it tomorrow because we are busy the rest of the week. But I am totally undecided which to buy, so I throw myself open to suggestions. What do you recommend, and why? (I am not very interested in ultra-closeups of insects)
Do let us all know what you finally decide to purchase.
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!
70mm, camera, cannon, f4, fuji, image, images, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, macro, pentax lens, photography, reviews, slr lens, thanks, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help me choose a lens for night photography w6wat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 10-27-2013 08:09 AM
Help me choose: A summary of my research for a tele lens ... all Sigma. jpzk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 226 04-08-2013 10:29 AM
Very limited budget, help me choose a manual lens. csmoore Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 03-01-2013 08:37 PM
Help me choose a lens! FckShoes Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 03-25-2008 12:13 PM
Help me choose a lens! bigburb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-31-2006 07:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:57 AM. | 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