Pentax lens all-around for flowers & reasonable zoom

fevbusch · 01-24-2007, 05:33 AM

I have the 18-55 kit lens on my K100D but would love to get the 50-200 ed lens. My concern is that will the 50-200 lens allow me to get close enough for instance to shoot a monarch butterfly on a flower. I was able to do this very nicely with a 28-105 Canon usm II lens (the Canon was just on loan, a D60 EOS). I would like to use only one lens but the close-up of flowers is important to me. If I could zoom in closer than the 3.61 feet the 50-200 allows would I get excellent quality close ups with the 50-200. I would love to see some examples of closeup pics taken with 50-200. Thanks, Freddy.

eurostar · 01-24-2007, 08:01 AM

I don't know, because I don't own the lens, the answer to your request, and surely other people will answer you.

But I want to say, hoping it could be useful to you, that I, for many years, on film camera, have photographed flowers will the really nice Pentax F70-210 F/4-5,6 zoom, simply adding a Nikon 3T two elements diopter (so called close up filter). The results were outstanding.

Adam · 01-24-2007, 08:57 AM

The 50-200mm works for close-ups, but I'd recommend using the A 70-210mm since it has a macro function at 70mm, unlike the F version. Add to that the fixed aperture

RBellavance · 01-24-2007, 09:03 AM

I believe the DA 50-200 will do just fine. See some examples in the following DPR thread:

Plum Blossoms tell.....spring is coming[K10D imgs]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The minimum focusing distance is 1.1m. Magnification is only 1:4, however.

fevbusch · 01-24-2007, 09:30 AM

Gosh, those are wonderful shots. I could definitely live with that kind of sharpness and detail from the 50-200 Pentax on my K100D.
Can I ask would I get similar quality without going to RAW. Also, what was the actual printed size of your images (in inches, please). What is the largest size you can print (in inches) retaining the same detail and sharpness. Forgive my abysmal ignorance, but did you zoom in at 100 to get that close.
By the way, will the 50-200 work in low light as well as the 18-55 kit. I think the 18-55 is outstanding in low light. You might also comment on a comparison of the Pentax 28-105 3.2-4.5 lens vs. the 50-200, in terms of the quality you showed in your shots. Again, great shots. Thanks, Freddy.

RBellavance · 01-24-2007, 10:10 AM

I'm sorry, but those shots are not mine ! I just happened upon them a few days after I bought my own 50-200mm.

Arjay Bee · 01-25-2007, 04:33 PM

Apologies, shown before - 50-200 at 200mm uncropped. Taken as jpeg. will print reasonably well.

This one post processed to get strange b/w effect as was originally taken through window glass: Also @200mm

Regarding low light you can see by the minimum f stop at 200mm that this lens isn't ideal and in very low light autofocus will hunt. Changing iso and manually overriding the auto focus is a workaround.

eurostar · 01-26-2007, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Mo

The 50-200mm works for close-ups, but I'd recommend using the A 70-210mm since it has a macro function at 70mm, unlike the F version. Add to that the fixed aperture

But not the ED lens of the F version.

fevbusch · 01-26-2007, 02:26 AM

Thanks, all. I'm strongly considering a Pentax FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 (silver/black, without power zoom)
that got excellent reviews and I saw terrific pictures of it. But it's out of stock .
Any opinions on the FA 28-105 4-5.6 (silver/black) That one is in plentiful supply (new). It costs $189. The 3.2 is only $30. more. Freddy

slip · 01-26-2007, 05:49 AM

Maybe you should think about the sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 macro.
it isn't a dedicated macro, and I haven't had a chance to do some outdoor macro work, but here is a close up of a pop can. just a test shot, but you will get the idea of how close you can go. this is about 2" away. I might have been able to get closer, but the shadow from the lens limited me

good luck in your purchase

cheers

randy

fevbusch · 01-26-2007, 06:51 AM

This sure gives me some food for thought, Randy. Hmmmm, 4x zoom and macro capability. I'm going to research this immediately. Thanks, Randy.
Freddy

RBellavance · 01-26-2007, 07:03 AM

Like Randy, I also own the Sigma 17-70. Be advised that to get the 1:2.3 magnification, you will need to be *very* close to your subject. That could be a problem with insects.

On the other hand, being able to practically touch the subject with the front end of the lens and still be able to focus may come in handy in some situations, I suppose.

My "while waiting for a real macro lens" solution is a Raynox DCR-250 (70 CDN$) fitted to my DA 50-200mm. It gives me a max magnification (at 200mm) of 2:1 at a distance of about 10cm. Here's a DPR thread where I put some sample images:

DA 50-200 + DCR-250 samples (5 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

slip · 01-26-2007, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by RBellavance

Like Randy, I also own the Sigma 17-70. Be advised that to get the 1:2.3 magnification, you will need to be *very* close to your subject. That could be a problem with insects.

On the other hand, being able to practically touch the subject with the front end of the lens and still be able to focus may come in handy in some situations, I suppose.

My "while waiting for a real macro lens" solution is a Raynox DCR-250 (70 CDN$) fitted to my DA 50-200mm. It gives me a max magnification (at 200mm) of 2:1 at a distance of about 10cm. Here's a DPR thread where I put some sample images:

DA 50-200 + DCR-250 samples (5 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I agree, it would be too close for insects. but could be ok with things like flowers, etc.

I would really love to have a tamron 90mm macro if I find out I like this type of photography. big bucks for this kid, though

cheers

randy

RBellavance · 01-26-2007, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by slipchuck

I would really love to have a tamron 90mm macro if I find out I like this type of photography.

That looks like a really sweet lens. It's on my LBA list, alongside the Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 and Sigma 105mm f2.8. Of course, I'd get only one of the three :-)

**NaClH2O** · 01-26-2007, 09:54 AM

Randy
Watch KEH for the Tamron 90mm macro, I got mine there for around $250USD, it wasn't the DI one, but still a good deal. It also doubles as a portrait lens and a good short telephoto. Check out my latest photo post "Gah winter is boring!..." to see what it can do besides macro.

NaCl(second hand lenses are great!)H2O

01-24-2007, 05:33 AM	#1
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064	Pentax lens all-around for flowers & reasonable zoom I have the 18-55 kit lens on my K100D but would love to get the 50-200 ed lens. My concern is that will the 50-200 lens allow me to get close enough for instance to shoot a monarch butterfly on a flower. I was able to do this very nicely with a 28-105 Canon usm II lens (the Canon was just on loan, a D60 EOS). I would like to use only one lens but the close-up of flowers is important to me. If I could zoom in closer than the 3.61 feet the 50-200 allows would I get excellent quality close ups with the 50-200. I would love to see some examples of closeup pics taken with 50-200. Thanks, Freddy.

01-24-2007, 08:01 AM	#2
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	I don't know, because I don't own the lens, the answer to your request, and surely other people will answer you. But I want to say, hoping it could be useful to you, that I, for many years, on film camera, have photographed flowers will the really nice Pentax F70-210 F/4-5,6 zoom, simply adding a Nikon 3T two elements diopter (so called close up filter). The results were outstanding. Last edited by eurostar; 01-24-2007 at 08:09 AM.

01-24-2007, 08:57 AM	#3
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	The 50-200mm works for close-ups, but I'd recommend using the A 70-210mm since it has a macro function at 70mm, unlike the F version. Add to that the fixed aperture Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Need a good Pentax zoom lens with reasonable price	sushamyraj	Sold Items	1	09-03-2011 07:22 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA L 18-55mm AL "kit" zoom lens - Brand NEW (Worldwide)	Genes Pentax	Sold Items	5	05-28-2010 10:21 PM
K-X zoom & portrait lens in 1	HoBykoYan	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	03-30-2010 02:43 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 Mini-Zoom Macro & Sears 135mm F2.8 Macro MF lens	DaveInPA	Sold Items	3	01-08-2010 05:38 PM

01-24-2007, 09:03 AM	#4
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	I believe the DA 50-200 will do just fine. See some examples in the following DPR thread: Plum Blossoms tell.....spring is coming[K10D imgs]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review The minimum focusing distance is 1.1m. Magnification is only 1:4, however.

01-24-2007, 09:30 AM	#5
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064 Original Poster	Gosh, those are wonderful shots. I could definitely live with that kind of sharpness and detail from the 50-200 Pentax on my K100D. Can I ask would I get similar quality without going to RAW. Also, what was the actual printed size of your images (in inches, please). What is the largest size you can print (in inches) retaining the same detail and sharpness. Forgive my abysmal ignorance, but did you zoom in at 100 to get that close. By the way, will the 50-200 work in low light as well as the 18-55 kit. I think the 18-55 is outstanding in low light. You might also comment on a comparison of the Pentax 28-105 3.2-4.5 lens vs. the 50-200, in terms of the quality you showed in your shots. Again, great shots. Thanks, Freddy.

01-24-2007, 10:10 AM	#6
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	I'm sorry, but those shots are not mine ! I just happened upon them a few days after I bought my own 50-200mm.

01-25-2007, 04:33 PM	#7
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	Apologies, shown before - 50-200 at 200mm uncropped. Taken as jpeg. will print reasonably well. This one post processed to get strange b/w effect as was originally taken through window glass: Also @200mm Regarding low light you can see by the minimum f stop at 200mm that this lens isn't ideal and in very low light autofocus will hunt. Changing iso and manually overriding the auto focus is a workaround.

01-26-2007, 02:11 AM	#8
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by Mo The 50-200mm works for close-ups, but I'd recommend using the A 70-210mm since it has a macro function at 70mm, unlike the F version. Add to that the fixed aperture But not the ED lens of the F version.

01-26-2007, 02:26 AM	#9
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064 Original Poster	Thanks, all. I'm strongly considering a Pentax FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 (silver/black, without power zoom) that got excellent reviews and I saw terrific pictures of it. But it's out of stock . Any opinions on the FA 28-105 4-5.6 (silver/black) That one is in plentiful supply (new). It costs $189. The 3.2 is only $30. more. Freddy

01-26-2007, 05:49 AM	#10
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Maybe you should think about the sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 macro. it isn't a dedicated macro, and I haven't had a chance to do some outdoor macro work, but here is a close up of a pop can. just a test shot, but you will get the idea of how close you can go. this is about 2" away. I might have been able to get closer, but the shadow from the lens limited me good luck in your purchase cheers randy

01-26-2007, 06:51 AM	#11
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064 Original Poster	This sure gives me some food for thought, Randy. Hmmmm, 4x zoom and macro capability. I'm going to research this immediately. Thanks, Randy. Freddy

01-26-2007, 07:03 AM	#12
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Like Randy, I also own the Sigma 17-70. Be advised that to get the 1:2.3 magnification, you will need to be very close to your subject. That could be a problem with insects. On the other hand, being able to practically touch the subject with the front end of the lens and still be able to focus may come in handy in some situations, I suppose. My "while waiting for a real macro lens" solution is a Raynox DCR-250 (70 CDN$) fitted to my DA 50-200mm. It gives me a max magnification (at 200mm) of 2:1 at a distance of about 10cm. Here's a DPR thread where I put some sample images: DA 50-200 + DCR-250 samples (5 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

01-26-2007, 08:04 AM	#13
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by RBellavance Like Randy, I also own the Sigma 17-70. Be advised that to get the 1:2.3 magnification, you will need to be very close to your subject. That could be a problem with insects. On the other hand, being able to practically touch the subject with the front end of the lens and still be able to focus may come in handy in some situations, I suppose. My "while waiting for a real macro lens" solution is a Raynox DCR-250 (70 CDN$) fitted to my DA 50-200mm. It gives me a max magnification (at 200mm) of 2:1 at a distance of about 10cm. Here's a DPR thread where I put some sample images: DA 50-200 + DCR-250 samples (5 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review I agree, it would be too close for insects. but could be ok with things like flowers, etc. I would really love to have a tamron 90mm macro if I find out I like this type of photography. big bucks for this kid, though cheers randy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-26-2007, 08:22 AM	#14
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by slipchuck I would really love to have a tamron 90mm macro if I find out I like this type of photography. That looks like a really sweet lens. It's on my LBA list, alongside the Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 and Sigma 105mm f2.8. Of course, I'd get only one of the three :-)

01-26-2007, 09:54 AM	#15
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Randy Watch KEH for the Tamron 90mm macro, I got mine there for around $250USD, it wasn't the DI one, but still a good deal. It also doubles as a portrait lens and a good short telephoto. Check out my latest photo post "Gah winter is boring!..." to see what it can do besides macro. NaCl(second hand lenses are great!)H2O