[interested_observer]

Good Morning,

I'll toss in my 2 cents (or pence, since your across the pond in the UK) in. Yes, I agree that lighting is the key here. That said, the lens - not so much in terms of a focal length or macro, but how it lets you adjust it. What I mean by that is what is referred to as focus throw. So, what is focus throw?

• In general - new auto focus lenses do NOT have it, and the older manual focus lenses do have it.

That still does not tell you what it is. What focus throw is - is the following.

• The amount of rotation a lens has using the focusing ring.
• There is a ring, wrapped around the body that you turn in order to bring the object into focus. The more the amount you can turn the ring - the better. Some lenses have perhaps 20 or 30 degrees worth of travel from close focus to infinity - this is great for auto focus - less distance for the focus motor to turn, and thus the faster you can get auto focus. Bad for what you are going to be looking for, because you want a lot of travel. I have a Zeiss lens that has about 355 degrees of travel - 180 degrees of it is for 6 inches to 12 inches. Something like this will provide you with the ability to every so slightly turn the focusing ring to make small adjustments to get the focus sharp.
• A sharp focusing lens, is a product of its optics. You need to go to the lens data base to find lenses with reputations for being extremely sharp.

The reason folks immediately say "macro" is because macro lenses are built this way. Sharp optics, and large focus throw, allowing for very fine focus. There is one additional "trick", that you can also apply. You can "focus" with the lens, or you can focus with "adjusting" the distance - making very slight adjustments. This distance adjustment can be done with the object - moving it close or farther away. It can also be done with adjusting the camera position too. So in order to do this, there are two types of an attachment - one called a bellows that fits between the lens and the camera (needs to be a K mount on both ends). This provides you some additional adjustments. In particular for magnification. The other is called a rail, that allows you to percisely adjust the physical position of the camera.

• Pentax K Macro Bellow | Macro | SRB-Photographic.co.uk
• Amazon.com : NEEWER

You Tube

You Tube

So, do you need all of these? A lens yes, but the next items, the bellows and rail? It depends on the control that you can exert in terms of focus with the lens, and your overall physical setup. They are options.

I remember coming across this little video. So you set the item down - shine a light on it, take the camera and shoot the picture - right. Pretty simple and straight forward. Well, here is what another photographer went through - who does not specialize in product photography.

• You Tube

  You Tube

[johnyates]

For this kind of thing I use a "K" 55mm 1.8 stopped down to f11.

[clackers]

Such great advice, here! +1 for the Tamron 90mm. For those on a budget, it can be pressed into service as an ersatz portrait lens, too.

[carrrlangas]

It looks like the topic is well covered, but I´ll chime in anyway:
I´d suggest a 100mm MACRO 1:2 lens doesn´t need any automation. A deep hood, flashes and apropiate light modifiers, solid tripod and you are good to go.
Here´s an example with the FA100/3.5 MACRO:
https://www.facebook.com/pesarusa/posts/780731338627769

[hoopsontoast]

I would say a sharp 50mm would be ideal, this was taken with a Sigma DP3M but only has a 50mm lens with a macro capability of around 1:3 so only really close focus.
Carefull lighting is the key, and a tripod and you should be good to go! Stop the lens down to around f11 for decent DOF as well.



Some shot with Pentax (FA20-35mm, FA43) neither macro lenses.







Also, all of these were done with Manual Focus.

[bassek]

I can only spend up to about 200 pounds and I must buy from the UK.

Look at the used Pentax A 50/1.7 at Ffordes for £49 and up. Manual macro is twice that. I have not bought from them, but I do buy from UK a lot.

Seb

[Transit]

My go-to lens for this sort of photography is the Pentax 50 mm f 2.8 macro. ....

in my case the FA

[Jonathan Mac]

I use my DA 35mm f/2.8 lt macro for this kind of shot. As others have said, more important is the lighting. Get a flash, even if it's just a manual one, and bounce the light off the ceiling. A good Yongnuo flash shouldn't set you back more than 70 quid.

[thechumpen]

Completely non camera related but seems you really need a good way to keep dust off the object as well when doing this kind of thing.

[TER-OR]

I have a Sigma 28mm macro f1.8 I use for scale model pictures etc. It's very good for that. Personally I wouldn't go over 50mm for this use.
But you can easily use a manual lens, and for this controlled studio work is perfect for such.

Look for some LED panels for lighting, they're inexpensive and useful.

If you explore my Flickr albums, you'll see some scale model photography.

[eyeswideshut]

I have to agree that lighting will be key.
Has anyone proposed the Q with the 01 or even 06 lens yet? Marvellous for close ups because of the larger depth of field.
(And Pentax needs more sales of this fine camera )

[Mirrie Dancer]

Interest_Observer, thank you for the videos, I watched the watch one and it was most helpful. I had no idea what it takes to take the 'perfect shot'.

To everyone,
A lot of the lenses that are being suggested are way out of my budget. Im in the UK and I think some lenses can be lot more pricey here than elsewhere. THe only one from the suggested lenses that I could maybe afford would be the Tamron 90mm macro. In all honesty I am thinking it might actually be worth buying a really good non-macro prime lens like the da 35 2.5, and fitting it with one of those extension tube thingamabobs for macro shots. I wasnt going to as I didnt want to compromise image quality or makes things complicated for myself, but the macros are just soooo expensive.

Do you think it's still possible to get good results by doing that?

---------- Post added 07-01-14 at 08:51 PM ----------

Personally I wouldn't go over 50mm for this use.

Why's that? Most other sources have been saying that it's best not to go below 50mm! Confused /

[Jonathan Mac]

Interest_Observer, thank you for the videos, I watched the watch one and it was most helpful. I had no idea what it takes to take the 'perfect shot'.

To everyone,
A lot of the lenses that are being suggested are way out of my budget. Im in the UK and I think some lenses can be lot more pricey here than elsewhere. THe only one from the suggested lenses that I could maybe afford would be the Tamron 90mm macro. In all honesty I am thinking it might actually be worth buying a really good non-macro prime lens like the da 35 2.5, and fitting it with one of those extension tube thingamabobs for macro shots. I wasnt going to as I didnt want to compromise image quality or makes things complicated for myself, but the macros are just soooo expensive.

Do you think it's still possible to get good results by doing that?

---------- Post added 07-01-14 at 08:51 PM ----------



Why's that? Most other sources have been saying that it's best not to go below 50mm! Confused /

Autofocus extension tubes are also expensive but if you're willing to focus manually they will be much cheaper. In that case there's no point shelling out for an AF lens though. To do it on the cheap I'd recommend a 50mm lens (M series 50/1.7 would be good), extension tubes and a flash, all mounted on a tripod (even a cheap one). At a push I think you could get the lot for 100 pounds.

[Mirrie Dancer]

Autofocus extension tubes are also expensive but if you're willing to focus manually they will be much cheaper. In that case there's no point shelling out for an AF lens though. To do it on the cheap I'd recommend a 50mm lens (M series 50/1.7 would be good), extension tubes and a flash, all mounted on a tripod (even a cheap one). At a push I think you could get the lot for 100 pounds.

Thank you. I dont mind spending 200 pounds if I can get one of the lenses on my wish list and convert it to macro instead of buying a lens solely for the macro product shots. Thats why Im considering extension tubes on a non-macro Do you think I could get away with using DA 35mm 2.4 and a 2x macro extension? Or does that significantly reduce the amount of light that get into the camera?

[interested_observer]

Thank you. I dont mind spending 200 pounds if I can get one of the lenses on my wish list and convert it to macro instead of buying a lens solely for the macro product shots. Thats why Im considering extension tubes on a non-macro Do you think I could get away with using DA 35mm 2.4 and a 2x macro extension? Or does that significantly reduce the amount of light that get into the camera?

I don't have the lens, but I do think that it would work out quite well. I would use a lot of light, and try out the autofocus. I have a lot of confidence in the K5, and I think that 16MP affords room for cropping. I would arrange things so that if you have any problems focusing, that you can make small adjustments in positioning. I would pick up the lens and give that a try by itself and if there is a problem, identify the problem and possible fix and go from there. I do think that its going to take 10 times longer that what you think that its going to take - most of it preparation. However, the film is pretty free.