[Ishpuini]

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.

True, esp if you're going to do true macro, i.e. at 1:1. However, the OP's announced subject were flowers, which generally don't require 1:1, so the working distance will be longer... Besides, the difference in working distance isn't that big between say 50mm and 100mm marco's: most 50mm are around 20cm, whereas 100mm macros are around 30cm. That's distance between subject and sensor plane, so the difference in length between the fully extended lenses should be subtracted from those 10cm difference to find out how different the distance is between the front element/hood and the subject.

Whereas the difference in working distance may be very important from the relative point-of-view of a tiny live subject, it may not make much difference when you're trying to keep the shade away from a subject you're photographing from above...

Wim

---

Last edited by Ishpuini; 03-25-2014 at 04:51 AM.

[WPRESTO]

Lots of good advice and personal preferences here, let me add some more of my own.
1. The longer FL macros (over 100mm) are definitely best for insects.
2. For macro, MF is either just as good or better than AF, WITH ONE EXCEPTION IN MY EXPERIENCE. Visiting museums, I find the 35mm f2.8 AF more satisfactory than MF lenses because using a tripod is almost always forbidden, and if I use MF I tend to shift a bit and miss focus more often than when I let AF hit the focus at the squeeze of the button.
3. With longer FL you can control backgrounds more easily, reducing the "hot spots" - BUT, note one poster above who prefers to include more background by using a shorter FL. Also, if you need to get down low, it's a little bit easier with a long FL lens, but only a little. Also, if you're in a botanic garden you may not be able to get close enough to a blossom to isolate it as a close up unless you're using a long FL lens.
4. Working in my "studio" (= the basement) I find short FL lenses more useful, 50mm being the most frequently selected lens.
5. OH, YES, another thing. At very close distances, reproduction ratios perhaps 1:4 and more, some focusing problems begin, getting especially troublesome in the 1:2 to 1:1 range. SHORTER FL lenses generally must be focused by moving the entire camera + lens fore aft, typically using a sliding or geared focusing rail. LONG FL lenses can be focused down to 1:1 by using the focus ring on the lens. Shorter here = 35, 50, 70mm. Longer = 125mm and higher. The common 90-105mm lenses in my experience are "on the edge." Sometimes I can set the camera + 90mm before a subject and focus directly with the helical ring. Other times it takes some tweaking with a geared rail, especially at repro ratios approaching 1:1.

There's no final advice any of us can give. As a stated before: 1) think about YOUR intended use; 2) think about your budget (long FL macros = 125mm and up, are very expensive); 3) consider the lenses you already own and whether you want overlap or want to step out to a FL not covered by the lenses on hand. For IQ, it's difficult to make a BAD choice among macros.

[mrNewt]

Something else to consider... macro for cheap... $50 or less (depending how lucky you are).

Since you already have this "M50 f1.4", may I recommend to try and find this: "vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconverter mc".
It will convert your 50mm into a 1:1 macro lens .

Works very well for macro photography!
And in a pinch it will transform your 50mm into a 100mm (since is a teleconverter as well) - for when you need the extra reach.

[wizofoz]

Pentax DFA 100mm WR

Edit: Will get you a 1:1 macro lens, it's WR and a bloody sharp lens.

I agree, the dfa100 is a killer lens

OTOH, if your objective is peach blossoms at an orchard, the 35mm macro gives you some wider angle versatility.

I suggest you do what I did..... get both.

[WPRESTO]

Something else to consider... macro for cheap... $50 or less (depending how lucky you are).

Since you already have this "M50 f1.4", may I recommend to try and find this: "vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconverter mc".
It will convert your 50mm into a 1:1 macro lens .

Works very well for macro photography!
And in a pinch it will transform your 50mm into a 100mm (since is a teleconverter as well) - for when you need the extra reach.

I had not noticed that you owned the 50mm f1.4. With my Spotmatic, 50mm f1.4 Takumar I used a Pentax "number 1" close up lens for more B&W than I can remember that were published in professional journals (technical illustrations of specimens). If the filter thread is 49mm on your 50mm, try purchasing the Pentax no. 1 from EBAY. BTW, my experience: the Pentax close-up lens, although just a single element, seems to give better results that other simple close up lenses even from well-regarded filter makers. Also, the metal mount is particular sturdy, rigid, and has really nice knurling. Still have mine 50+ years after purchase. It reduces near focus distance to about 10" (~25cm) and works well for flower-sized subjects.

[CreationBear]

BTW, my experience: the Pentax close-up lens, although just a single element, seems to give better results that other simple close up lenses even from well-regarded filter makers

Not the OP, but I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. I'm curious whether "keeping it in the family" so to speak regarding lens and close-up filter is a pretty good guideline--I've seen great results from Voigtlander lenses like the 40mm Ulron and 90mm that use a dedicated close up filter...perhaps they're optimized for each particular lens? (On the other hand, I've seen some nice results posted on Flickr by Wesley Wong using a Cannon 500D close up lens and a DA70--though no doubt he has superior camera/post processing skills from the get-go.)

[lytrytyr]

I've seen great results from Voigtlander lenses like the 40mm Ulron and 90mm that use a dedicated close up filter...perhaps they're optimized for each particular lens?

They are.

Also, the close-up "filters" fit on the dedicated dome hood of each lens,
so they are spaced at an optimal distance in front of the lens.



You don't get that with a generic close-up "filter"
placed directly on the filter mount of a lens.

[GibbyTheMole]

Since you already have this "M50 f1.4", may I recommend to try and find this: "vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconverter mc".
It will convert your 50mm into a 1:1 macro lens

My wife has one of those. It works quite well.

[WPRESTO]

Not the OP, but I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. I'm curious whether "keeping it in the family" so to speak regarding lens and close-up filter is a pretty good guideline--I've seen great results from Voigtlander lenses like the 40mm Ulron and 90mm that use a dedicated close up filter...perhaps they're optimized for each particular lens? (On the other hand, I've seen some nice results posted on Flickr by Wesley Wong using a Cannon 500D close up lens and a DA70--though no doubt he has superior camera/post processing skills from the get-go.)

Could be true, although I have several Nikon & Canon achromatic (2 element) close up lenses that work well on longer FL lenses. For example, a Canon 250D in 58mm diameter mounted on a Pentax 55-300 gives satisfactory results when the lens is in the 100~200mm range and stopped to f8, softer @ 300mm, but acceptable. I used to carry this equipment when traveling & wanting to reduce weight, but today I would take one of the dedicated macros and let my shoulders & back deal with it. The 55-300 has been in retirement for a bit over a year, since I purchased the 60~250.

[CreationBear]

You don't get that with a generic close-up "filter"
placed directly on the filter mount of a lens.

Thanks for the reply (and picture)--the Cannon product gets good reviews, though I was curious about what happens to quality once you have to use a step-up ring (assuming a 49mm Pentax and the smallest Cannon 52mm filter.)

---------- Post added 03-25-14 at 07:57 AM ----------

although I have several Nikon & Canon achromatic (2 element) close up lenses that work well on longer FL lenses

Wpresto, thanks for the input--if I understand Cannon nomenclature, the 250 is "stronger" than the 500D, so that results might be even better with it. I definitely understand the principle that there's "no free lunch" when it comes to optics, but since I'm usually carrying a backpack on my photography excursions, I've started to wonder how much I really want to lug, say, an FA50, up and over the hill.

Apologies to the OP for the thread-jack!

[WPRESTO]

[/COLOR]

Thanks for the reply (and picture)--the Cannon product gets good reviews, though I was curious about what happens to quality once you have to use a step-up ring (assuming a 49mm Pentax and the smallest Cannon 52mm filter.)[/LEFT]

---------- Post added 03-25-14 at 07:57 AM ----------



Wpresto, thanks for the input--if I understand Cannon nomenclature, the 250 is "stronger" than the 500D, so that results might be even better with it. I definitely understand the principle that there's "no free lunch" when it comes to optics, but since I'm usually carrying a backpack on my photography excursions, I've started to wonder how much I really want to lug, say, an FA50, up and over the hill.

Apologies to the OP for the thread-jack!

The Canon designations refer to focus distance in cm: their 500D units reduce focus distance to 500cm (half a meter) and the 250D to 250cm (1/4 meter or about 11 inches) with the camera lens focused at infinity. This applies REGARDLESS OF LENS FOCAL LENGTH, so a 250D attached to a lens of 100~200mm focal length provides a bug-catching magnification.
BTW, SFAIK, the Nikon achromatic close-up "filters" are out of production and consequently are only available used, but they commonly show up on EBAY. Canon still makes the 250D & 500D. Nikon's were made in 52mm & 62mm; Canon makes them in 58mm up to 77mm, the latter useful on such lenses as a 60-250mm or 300mm f4.
Using a step adapter to mount a 52mm 3T Nikon on a lens with 58mm filter threads MIGHT cause vignetting, but not necessarily. Mounting let's say a Canon 58mm 500D on a lens with 67mm probably will cause some corner cut-off IF the lens is focused at infinity, but perhaps not if focused closer. Only experimenting will determine. If there is vignetting, because you're doing close-ups it might be possible to crop off the worst and use PP to lighten the remainder. Slight vignetting isn't always a vice. It was commonly added intentionally to B&W prints because a slight darkening of the corners enhances many images, tending to keep your eyes from wandering off the frame. Rather intense vignetting was routinely added to B&W portraits. Silent movie makers almost always added very intense vignetting to facial close-ups of heroines.

[Kayaker-J]

Well, guys, since the thread has taken a generalized macro discussion turn: I'm hoping to have solved the true macro weight issue by adding the slim and slender Olympus 60mm/2.8 'Splashproof' 1:1 macro to the arsenal... at a whopping 6.5 ounces! Nothing else like it. Ming Thein's macro shootout of this one vs. Nikon, Zeiss Makro Planar, and Pana./Leica pushed me over the edge (and he's one of a rare breed still able to command the big bucks for shooting things like Swiss watches... all around the world). No worries at infinity or in low light either, being sharp wide open as a general purpose 120mm-equivalent telephoto. Stabilized, of course; touch screen to (contrast detect) auto-focus and shoot.

Oly plus K-3 gives me the most useable general tele range all covered with quality primes, along with low pack weight and zoom-comparable FL flexibility for nature and such. I don't mind MF with lenses adapted to m4/3, as required, for what I intend to shoot. Along with the CV 40mm Ultron and the SMC Takumar 50mm macro (or the 1:2-to-1:10 optimized version of the Auto-Nikkor 50mm/3.5 micro), I figure I now have a range of high performance lightweight options I'll really want to carry and use. And at a pretty low cost, too, considering all the possibilities. Just one more approach, then.

[CreationBear]

Using a step adapter to mount a 52mm 3T Nikon on a lens with 58mm filter threads MIGHT cause vignetting, but not necessarily.

Thanks for elaborating...as you allude to, I pretty much always throw a vignette in PP anyway, so it a little wouldn't be a deal breaker.

KayakerJ--that 60mm Oly almost tempted me to go toward the Mu43 world instead of Pentax; excellent to hear that you're getting the best of both worlds.

[ChristianRock]

Has the OP settled on an option yet?

I think a valid option, even if just temporarily until a dedicated macro lens is found, is to use inverter rings. I bought two recently - 49mm and 52mm, for a total investment of about 10 dollars! There's no optical elements so it's not a problem if they are off-brand.

The beauty of it is that I can invert my 28mm lens and get extreme macro (about 1.7:1), and then I can use the 50mm or 55mm and get about 1:1 to 1:1.3 macro with very good sharpness (depending on how it's focused, it changes the magnification quite a bit). Or I can use my 135mm lens and get about 1:3 magnification.

Here's some cherry blossoms from my backyard...



Here's a bee on a dandellion, shot with the SMC-M 50mm f/1.7. Your 50mm f/1.4 would deliver similar results:



This is a center crop. Probably good enough for not being a 500 dollar dedicated macro lens...



These are weed flowers:



And the center crop:



But my favorite lens to take to a flower garden is the SMC-A 70-210mm f4. Not as sharp as a dedicated macro lens, only goes to 1:4 magnification - which is actually enough for most flowers - but to me it more than makes up for it with its wonderful colors. It also doubles as a fine portrait lens.

[Bagga_Txips]

In the end I decided to get the 100WR, because it would also act as a tele lens, and later I might even get the 1.4 teleconverter. But they had absolutely no macro lenses in stock at my only dealer in town, so I shall use my 18-135 together with my M1.4 with some cheapo extension tubes. Oh well, that saved me some cash I suppose.