[elad]

Hi
I own a Pentax k-x with the kit 18-55 & 50-200 lens, and also a P-M 50mm F1.4 (manual, bought it several years ago second hand, my favorite ).

I'm want a macro lens, the purpose is -
* At home - pet mice and plants (also fish in aquarium if it works)
* At the field - flowers, bugs, reptiles

Some more info
* I want it to be a 1:1 lens
* budget limit is around 500$
* When I go to the field I don't like taking more than 1-2 lens
* I usually don't take landscape photos
* I really like taking portrait photos
* Auto-focus speed and bokeh performance - doesn't matter
* Sharpness and CA performance - matters
* Second-hand is an option

I was looking at 3 options (all are pentax):
35mm limited F2.8. Cons - 1:1 requires approaching too close. Pros - sharp. (doubles as landscape lens but I don't do that a lot).
50mm D FA F2.8. Cons - 1:1 still problematic. Pros - doubles as portrait.
100mm D FA F2.8. Cons - requires to be more steady. Doesn't double as anything else? For the photos I've seen its not as sharp as the others. Pros - 1:1 has fair distance. Maybe I can double it as tele for close birds in the field?

I change my opinion about the selection almost every day!!
Please help

Thanks

[MJSfoto1956]

if you are shooting up close (e.g. flower stamens), then the 35mm Macro Limited is perfect.
If you are shooting butterflies or other skittish critters, then longer is better: e.g. 200mm + 1.4x teleconverter + extension tube makes for a nice setup.

Michael

[TER-OR]

For the most skittish insects like some butterflies and dragonflies, 100mm is not really long enough, and a nice telephoto/long zoom is a good choice. For calmer insects like beetles, bees, etc. (even most butterflies and dragonflies) a 100mm macro is good.

100mm is too tight for a lot of other close work, for your flowers etc. you'll want the 50 or 35.

What I'd be tempted to do in your case is look for a used 100mm macro - FA, DFA or DFA WR and a used DA35mm f2.4 "plastic wonder" lens. The 35 focuses at about 1 foot, which is probably fine for most of what you want to do with it, plus it's a well-regarded general use lens and is plenty sharp for pseudo-macro work.

[CarlJF]

You should also get a look at the Tamron 90mm macro. Much cheaper than the Pentax 100mm, great results in macro and as a portrait (headshot) lens. However, the AF/MF selection ring is a bit akward to use compared to the Pentax, and no WR if it's important to you.

Here's a shot I got last week with the Tamron:

[JohnX]

It's all about working distance.

Smaller the focal length, the less working distance, so at 1:1 you'll be a lot closer to the subject with a 35mm than a 100mm.

As others have said, still life subjects - 35mm would be fine; live subjects, 100mm is better.

Not sure of the price, but the new Tamron 70-200 macro is looking good.

[dms]

For close up a TC also works well. I would suggest testing the water w/ about a $75 outlay and then you will know best later what else to get.
Actually there are so many variations as a start. Following are two examples. Both will do what you want.
-- A Pentax 50mm f/1.7( M) + Vivitar macro 2x TC. Both PK (not PKA will save money unless you feel you need these w/ A setting)
-- Or non pentax 100 mm f/3.5 (PKA) macro + the included diopter (made by cosina, sold under many brands--comes in AF and MF versions)
For macro AF is not very useful. Also you should get a lens w/ an aperture ring--so you have the option later to add extension tubes, etc.
Basically as others have said a 35mm is nice for plants etc.--but then m=1/3 is likely all you need.

Actually even less expensive is a vivitar 2x macro TC and your 50mm f/1.4; however, this lens is not great as a macro, and you may want to stay around f/11-f/16 and m<0.5 for best results.

[08amczb]

I have the 100mm macro. It's sharp. I use it for nearly everything now, it's my favorite lens. It doubles as portrait lens. For flowers it isn't wide enough some times, but the working distance is apropriate for insects.

Cons - requires to be more steady

This isn't true. It depends on the magnification. (Like DoF...) (At 1:1 magnification moveing the lens by 1mm makes 1mm move on the projected image on the sensor, regardless the focal length.)

[Kozlok]

ALL macro lenses are great. You just need to decide what "else" you want to do with it. The 35 is a fine walk-around lens. The 50 is a long-ish walk around. The 100 is great for moving things, and a fine telephoto. If you want a lens to double as a portrait lens, I would go between 50 and 70mm. The Pentax 50 is stupendous. For 70mm, your obvious choice is Sigma. 70mm gives a tight portrait lens. I like 70 better outdoors, 50 better indoors. But then again, indoors, I want something faster than f2.8, so I wouldn't double up my 50 macro as a portrait lens.

The Sigma 70mm is a truly great lens. It is sharp, great bokeh, has a focus limiter. It's a little bit big, but not enormous. It's a pretty great portrait lens, a tack-sharp macro, has a nice look to it with front light.

Samples:















100% Crop


Portrait:



And it will do landscapes, too

[elad]

This isn't true. It depends on the magnification. (Like DoF...) (At 1:1 magnification moveing the lens by 1mm makes 1mm move on the projected image on the sensor, regardless the focal length.)

Thanks
But are you sure? I thought that if I observe an object in a constant magnification and tilt by 1 degree, then standing far away with 100mm would shift the image more then standing close with 35mm.

---------- Post added 06-19-15 at 01:03 PM ----------

The Tamron 90mm is only 10% cheaper (not that much...) than the Pentax 100mm WR which should perform better (except that aperture ring)

Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro - 100$ cheaper and my impression so far is good!

[Adam]

Hi
I own a Pentax k-x with the kit 18-55 & 50-200 lens, and also a P-M 50mm F1.4 (manual, bought it several years ago second hand, my favorite ).

I'm want a macro lens, the purpose is -
* At home - pet mice and plants (also fish in aquarium if it works)
* At the field - flowers, bugs, reptiles

Some more info
* I want it to be a 1:1 lens
* budget limit is around 500$
* When I go to the field I don't like taking more than 1-2 lens
* I usually don't take landscape photos
* I really like taking portrait photos
* Auto-focus speed and bokeh performance - doesn't matter
* Sharpness and CA performance - matters
* Second-hand is an option

I was looking at 3 options (all are pentax):
35mm limited F2.8. Cons - 1:1 requires approaching too close. Pros - sharp. (doubles as landscape lens but I don't do that a lot).
50mm D FA F2.8. Cons - 1:1 still problematic. Pros - doubles as portrait.
100mm D FA F2.8. Cons - requires to be more steady. Doesn't double as anything else? For the photos I've seen its not as sharp as the others. Pros - 1:1 has fair distance. Maybe I can double it as tele for close birds in the field?

I change my opinion about the selection almost every day!!
Please help

Thanks

All the Pentax options are optically superb, so I guess it would boil down to the focal length you prefer. The 3 lenses have real-world applications, i.e. the 35mm is a good walkaround, and the 100mm is a good telephoto. The D FA is probably the most versatile choice overall, though for 1:1 work you'll probably be better off with the 100mm.

[08amczb]

But are you sure? I thought that if I observe an object in a constant magnification and tilt by 1 degree, then standing far away with 100mm would shift the image more then standing close with 35mm.

You are right, for tilting 1 degree it makes bigger movement (sin(alpha)*working distance). My observation only stands for shifting.
Thanks for correcting me.
Anyway macro shooting generally needs flash.

[normhead]

At a $100 difference I'd go for the Pentax because that's not much to pay for weather sealing, and it is lighter. I have both the Tamron 90 and Sigma 70, and both are excellent lenses. Image Quality and sharpness are going to be near identical no matter which you pick, among those three.

Tamron 90 macro slideshow..

Sigma 70 macro slideshow.

[Nicolas06]

At a $100 difference I'd go for the Pentax because that's not much to pay for weather sealing, and it is lighter. I have both the Tamron 90 and Sigma 70, and both are excellent lenses. Image Quality and sharpness are going to be near identical no matter which you pick, among those three.

Tamron 90 macro slideshow..

Sigma 70 macro slideshow.

+1 weather sealing & lighter/smaller also better build quality is a plus for the DFA100.

For portraiture, I'd say something arround 70mm is great, particulary outdoor and 50mm is nice indoor. 100mm can do it outdoor, but I'd not use it as primary lense for portraiture. While interresting for some case, it is annoying in many case to have such long focal length. Also while a 70mm is going to do it indoor, at least for headshoots, 100mm will work only on big rooms.

As you are interrested in bugs and other moving things I would think 70 or 100mm are good choices to start.