[UncleVanya]

I've done it all. The add on lenses work well if you get high quality, Nikon, Canon and Raynox all make exceptional filters that are corrected and work well on a variety of lenses. Try using a calculator to understand which to match with what. Longer lenses with the higher diopter work well.

Generated from my Motorola Droid Mini using tools.rackonly.com


Generated from my Motorola Droid Mini using tools.rackonly.com

Extension (tubes or bellows) works better with shorter lenses.

Reversing a lens also works.

Reversing a lens in front of another lens is pretty amazing also.

Using an enlarger lens reversed or normally works well.
Lightweight Macro - PentaxForums.com

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 12-20-2017 at 08:31 AM.

[photolady95]

The Raynox adapters have a clip on design that clips to any lens filter size from 52 to 68. I have the DCR-150 and it is mainly used on longer focal lengths of at least 100mm, coupled with a step up ring if mounted to a filter size of 49. Here is just one of my macro shots using the A 50mm + deglassed 2x TC, and the Raynox DCR-150:

[UncleVanya]

Macro photograpy calculators, including extension tube, stacked lens and focus stack step calculators

[Na Horuk]

one focal length, which is why I asked about which focal length would be best.

Depends on what you want to photograph. The DA 35mm f2.8 macro (beware, there is also a DA 35mm f2.4 which is not macro) can be used for flower photos and non-macro landscapes, but is probably not the best choice for photographing snakes because you are literally a few millimeters from the subject when you focus to macro. Remember, macro just means the lens allows really super close focus. Wider the lens, the closer you will be and that means more complications. You might cast shadow on the subject, your lens might be reflected in the subject's eyes, you might scare the subject, you might get attacked by the subject (snakes, spiders..)

Usually for macro beginners it is recommended to start with telephoto, between 90mm and 105mm. Pentax 100mm macro is more well suited for insect and animal photography, portraiture, and telephoto landscapes. I have one and recommend it. The links posted to FA 100mm for around $200 is a good deal. You basically get a pro lens. It will likely blow away all your other lenses. Sigma 105mm is, according to reports, pretty good, too. Almost like Pentax, though Pentax usually has better colour rendering. Both are sharp and good to start macro photography. Tamron 90mm is not bad, either, and it is even cheaper.
DFA 50mm is by all reports a terrific lens and has many uses because of its normal Focal length. I would still recommend you go with a more telephoto lens to begin.

You can get even older lenses, like F series or even A series. If you want to use extension tubes or bellows you can go even older and get M series lens. I know some people got good results with inexpensive Pentax M 50mm f1.7 and bellows, but that takes quite some skill. Really depends on you and what you want to photograph. If you love to use old manual lenses, go for it. If you want fast results and modern automation, then you need F or newer. If you want to photograph things that are perfectly still, you can get wider angle. If you want things that move, that might be skittish or dangerous, get telephoto. No modern macro prime will disappoint you in terms of image quality.

Edit: I stretched my budget and got DFA 100mm macro some years ago and its still the best lens I have. Do not regret it. Only a DA limited that I have comes close

[stevebrot]

What is the best route to macro?

Define best...

Cheap, easy, high-quality...choose two.

That being made clear, it would be good to note up front that any macro obsession will involve spending money for things one never would have considered necessary.

Macro zoom lens
Macro prime lens
Macro glass filters
Bellows
Extension tubes

A few notes:

• Macro zooms are seldom (never?) true macro (1:2 or higher magnification)
• Macro primes are the easiest and often the most expensive option. Auto focus is a dubious luxury.
• Not all macro primes offer native 1:1 or reasonable working distance at 1:1
• Auxiliary (screw-on) macro lenses vary in quality from barely adequate to quite good. The Raynox products mentioned above are quite good when paired to a decent host lens.
• Bellows work well with the quality of lens mounted being a limiting factor. Pentax made dedicated bellows lenses (essentially a macro lens with no focus mechanism) at one point and these are highly recommended (if you can fine one) in that they have superb field flatness. Note that the cost at this point approaches that of the cheaper dedicated macro primes. Be aware of potential clearance issues for the rear standard with your intended camera. The prism housing and/or lower body may not allow for mount/unmount.
• Extension tubes are a reasonable option and are often quite cheap. Don't sweat whether there are "A" contacts. Those often don't work as well as expected. A common problem is a painted or anodized surface on the mount face facing the camera. Current model Pentax bodies require electrical conductance across the "data" contact on the body. Such may be provided with a little judicious sanding to expose bare metal.
• Some sort of reverse lens setup is often the cheapest way through the door to high magnification.
• Focusing is not as straightforward as one might think. At higher magnifications, it is easier to move camera and lens as a unit to focus. With reversed lenses, this may be the only option. This is done with a focus rail or bellows having both upper and lower geared rails.
• There is never enough light* and light is not cheap
• There is never enough depth of field and workarounds are not easy and may be expensive
• Positioning the camera to subject can be problematic

Those last four points are where things get involved. The photo technique, lighting, and field accessories parts of the site are where one may get all sorts of great advice.


Steve

* With high magnification comes longer effective focal length meaning that light to the sensor and viewfinder at 1:1 is generally half of what is available at infinity focus.

[stevebrot]

Not all macro primes offer native 1:1 or reasonable working distance at 1:1

How this translates to the field is hard to describe in a few words except to say that working distance to the front element* at 1:1 is about the same or less than the nominal focal length. The photo below of my Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro in action at 1:1 should give some indication.




Even with the hood removed, things are still tight. This has implications for lighting. According to the detailed review on this site, the DA 35/2.8 Limited Macro provides about 1" working distance at 1:1. A 100mm macro lens buys greater working distance, but at the price of reduced depth of field. The same is true for bellows and extension rings. There is no winning this game.


Steve

* The actual measure is to the front principal plane or something like that. I don't have time to look it up and it is not important except to understand that things can get really tight.

[pathdoc]

Get yourself a second-rate 1.4X or 2X teleconverter from the Pentax-A or Pentax AF era, deglass it (it unscrews from the back with a spanning wrench), and you can use it behind everything and with full aperture control. Pentax-A variants may not pass the focal length or program line data, but that is of secondary concern, and a lot of macro shooters prefer to use manual focus anyway.

Beware versions that are also Ricoh compatible (KAR or P-KA/R), as really cheap ones can have the dangerous variety of Ricoh pin. Kalimar make one with the rounded version that is safe.

[AggieDad]

Add my vote to the Raynoxes. The 150 & the 250 have different diopter magnifications. They can also be stacked using a step down ring for a third level of magnification.

Another good entry point is a reverse lens. A manual focus 35mm or 50mm with a reversing ring can be a low cost way of doing macro. The reversed lens can be used directly to the camera or at the end of another lens or extension tubes.

[WPRESTO]

I'll stick in another two cents.
1) Bellows are delicate and clumsy to use - best when used indoors in a "studio" setting; very awkward to use in the field, not well suited to active live subjects.
2) as photolady95 pointed out above, and i will restate, the Raynox 2 magnification set comes with an extremely convenient clip-on adapter that will mount the filters on lenses with filter threads from 52 to 68mm. That covers a really wide selection of normal to modest telephoto lenses, and wide to moderately long zoom lenses. I sometimes remount one of the units on a ring that will allow attachment to lenses with a 49mm filter thread. Such steppping rings are availble very cheaply from AdapterRings.com - Offical Site. The world's largest seller of Camera Adapter Rings..

Price check done in last 60 seconds. From B&H Raynox CM-2000 MacroExplorer set, $110. BEST BARGAIN FOR ENTERING MACRO.
I cannot emphasize how strongly I recommend this Raynox two lens kit for starting in macro. Many who have tried them never use anything else.




---------- Post added 12-20-17 at 01:34 PM ----------

[BrianR]

What lenses do you currently have?
What size objects are you hoping to photograph?

I'll throw in another +1 for the Raynox filters, I only have the dcr250 though. As a plus, if you decide macro is something you want to pursue and end up with a dedicated macro prime, the raynox can be used with the macro for even more magnifcation. The DCR250 pairs nicely with the DFA100mm macro for ~2X life size magnification.

[Thagomizer]

As Stevebrot points out, light is vital. Existing light shooting is very hit and miss; mostly miss in my experience. You'll need to get well acquainted with your flash. Many macro combinations noted above will have you working in the shadow of the lenses taking the photo as they will block the light from both built in flash or shoe mounted flash. Getting the light where you need it can be a challenge. Extending the flash with some sort of DIY device is a cheap way around this. Think Pringles tin. Adding diffusion to the mix will improve the quality of your shots more than you might think.

Depending on what mix of lenses you've got you might be able to make your own close-up lens by reversing a short, manual prime on another, longer focal length lens. Resulting magnification is the focal length of the primary, camera mounted lens, divided by the focal length of the reversed prime lens. So, for example, a 50mm lens reversed on a 100mm lens give you 2:1. This might be more magnification than you need. Using two lenses closer in focal length will give lower magnification. Reverse coupling rings are available online, but I've made my own by epoxying step up and step down rings of the appropriate filter diameters so that the correct male threads for the lenses being used are at either end of the resulting Frankenring. Or there's duct tape for a quick, down and dirty trial. You still have the advantages of the camera mounted lens intact. There are varying schools of thought on whether one should use the aperture ring on the reversed prime or on the camera mounted lens, or inserting an aperture disc between the two lenses to get the best results possible. But if you've already got the bits required, this might be your cheapest way into beginning macro.

There are lots of "macro" threads on Pentax Forums that will be of use. Just enter "macro" into the "search the forums" field and you'll be able to look through lots of tips, pointers etc.

Here's a link to lots more useful information: Extreme Macro Photography

[WPRESTO]

Below:
1) the Raynox CM-2000 MacroExplorer kit
2) One of the Raynox mounted on a 200mm SMCA lens (not the macro - this is the widely available "ordinary' 200mm f4, commonly priced used for about $100)
3) unretouched JPEG taken with the 200mm f4 and the 1.5X (150) Raynox
4) unretouched JPEG taken with the 200mm f4 and the 2.5X (250) Raynox.

These were taken @ f8, lens focused @ infinity. The penny is not quite parallel to the sensor so the top edge has gone out of the plane of focus. The dollar bill seems to have gone slightly out of the plane of focus along the left side of the image.

[WPRESTO]

And for zoom lenses, this is an unretouched JPEG taken with an old Tamron 28-105mm zoom (1980's vintage) using a Raynox 2.5X (250) with the lens @ 105, infinity, f8.

[Not a Number]

Great one, but you still need a prime lens to mount on them. And the lens needs to have focus and aperture rings (so most DA lenses cannot be used), because the camera can not set either through the bellows. They are difficult to use and usually require some sort of base/tripod and lights and lots of skill

Na Horuk gives an excellent on summation of the options for macro. If the lens has an iris that a manual ring is a must. However I will point out focus is not. After all the dedicated bellows macro lens do not have focusing helical threads. Nor do adapted lenses such as enlarger or microscope objectives. Focus is achieved by moving the entire rig (lens, bellow/tubs and camera) or by adjusting the extension. And microscope objectives do not have diaphragms so you shoot at a fixed aperture.

SMC Pentax 100mm F4 Bellows Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Pentax 100mm f/4 bellows M42 mount bellows lens test

Otherwise I have nothing (useful or not) to add to what has already been said.

[jddwoods]

I would suggest a macro lens. There are four available you can buy new. The Tamron 90mm, DA 35 Limited, DFA 50 and DFA 100 WR. They are useful even beyond their macro capabilities. I have the DA 35 Limited which doubles as a macro for florals, coins and stamps and a walk around normal lens. I also have the DFA 100WR which doubles as my macro for insects, frogs and other small skittish creatures and it is also a nice medium Telephoto. I used to have the DFA 50 but sold it to get the DFA 100 WR. I wish I had kept it as it was a convenient mid range macro and good sharp landscape lens. I have no experience with the Tamron but its reviews are very positive.