[jeryst]

I would like to play around with some macro shots, however there seems to be many different options:

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

To me, it seems that bellows or extension tubes would be the most logical choices
because they are relatively inexpensive, and they would work with all of your lenses.

What are the advantages of bellows over extension tubes and vice versa?

How do bellows and extension tubes compare to actual macro lenses?

Which focal lengths are best in a macro lens: wide angle, standard, or telephoto?

[Adam]

If you're just starting out, I'd recommend going with a dedicated macro lens. A 50mm with 1:1 capabilities such as the D FA 50mm would be perfect. Longer focal lengths increase your working distance and may be more convenient based on what you're shooting. The 35mm is a bit too short for my taste, but can still deliver some really beautiful shots.

Bellows are nice and deliver good image quality when paired with a good prime, but they're fully manual and require more patience.

[SpecialK]

Which focal lengths are best in a macro lens: wide angle, standard, or telephoto?

They come in many FL's - typically 35, 50, 70, 90-105. Longer focal lengths give you more room between camera and subject so it is easier to use flash or avoid scaring off bugs, and they work well as a general medium-range lens. I had a Tamron 90, which I liked. Handheld.


Some 70-300 budget zooms "say" they are macro, but only get down to 1:2 or 1:3, and only at the long end. I had a Sigma 70-300 and it was "OK" for the occasional close up. Handheld, with a little cropping I think.

[Scorpio71GR]

I have always felt the closeup filters are the best and most economical option to get started out. So simple plus filters are good way to start. I have never used the Raynox filters but many people love them. Do no overlook manual lenses. True macro work is almost always done with manual focus. Extention tubes can also work but unless you find the extremely rare Jessop set you are going to fully manual. The Tamron 90mm macro is an excellent lens and can purchased used for around $200 US. There is also the Sigma 105 macro as well and both of those are autofocus. I would stay around that focal length. I mainly only use my 50mm Macro for flower shots. In my opinion there is just no replacement for a good dedicated macro lens. I have used filters, extension tubes, and belloews. A dedictated macro lens is more simpl, less cumbersome and can also double as great landscape lens.

[boriscleto]

Extention tubes can also work but unless you find the extremely rare Jessop set you are going to fully manual.

I found these on shopgoodwill



They don't qualify as cheap macro...(Though the black KX and the PZ-70 in the auction lot were a bonus)

CHEAP MACRO -- Buying or exploiting a lens for ultraclose work - PentaxForums.com

[Fogel70]

I would like to play around with some macro shots, however there seems to be many different options:

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

To me, it seems that bellows or extension tubes would be the most logical choices
because they are relatively inexpensive, and they would work with all of your lenses.

What are the advantages of bellows over extension tubes and vice versa?

How do bellows and extension tubes compare to actual macro lenses?


Which focal lengths are best in a macro lens: wide angle, standard, or telephoto?

Bellows and extension tubes work well, and if they are used with high quality lenses it can give result almost as good as dedicated macro lenses. But it will vary depending on optical quality of the lens, and primes usually give better result than zoom lenses. FI a 50 mm prime lens combined with extension tubes, can be a cheap way of trying out macro, but if you use cheap extension tubes, the lens will need aperture ring.

Below is a macro shot where I used an old 135 mm m42 lens with extension tube, from when I started out with macro shooting. (in total i believe I payed like $15 for them)
Auto Revuenon 135/2.8 - Fogel70's Album: Screw mount lenses - PentaxForums.com

If using tripod, bellows on focus rail work very well as it gives you much more control of magnification and focus than a macro lens give.

Dedicated macro lenses are more convenient to use, especially if you want to shoot handheld. Shorter focal length make them easier to handle, but longer focal length are need when you need longer working distance. FI when shooting insects.

My overall favorite Macro lens is DA 35 Limited. Small, light and useful for much more than macro. And it also renders out of focus areas very nicely and can make the pictures look almost like paintings.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/122-lens-clubs/243112d141494...3bf1610234.jpg

[Sandy Hancock]

Cheap? Get a Raynox magnifier. I don't own one, but I've been consistently blown away by the quality of the images.

Less cheap? The Kenko auto aperture extension tubes are excellent. I just recently acquired a set and so far I have been impressed with the capabilities, if not the ease of use.

No expense spared, easy image quality? Get a macro lens. I have the DA35 limited for APS-C, the DFA100WR, and the 645A120. They are all *way* better than either of the above options. The DFA50 macro is a cheaper option which I'm sure is superb.

[Skodadriver]

Macro imaging tools are probably best determined by the type of shooting you have in mind. If you are going to be out and about and need a macro facility you could use a zoom with an attached close up lens, easy to carry, put on, take off etc.
If you are in a studio environment with static subjects and can provide stable platform, good lighting etc and need 1:1 or better, maybe bellows or extension tubes.
If you need the camera to have a lens with an "A" setting for enabling quickly taken images and using dedicated flash then a suitable macro lens.
Lots of things to consider!
I know very little about macro imaging so have a selection of methods to suit my needs, but generally use a macro lens. A Tamron SP90 adaptall 2 (with an "A" mount for up to 1:2 or 1:1 with an extension tube) and a Sigma 50mm (manual focus with "A" aperture, for up to 1:1).
I have been surprised by how good images can be with just a close up lens and this will enable AF lenses to be used.

[Na Horuk]

Macro zoom lens

Usually not really macro magnification, just closer focusing than usual. Often poor overall IQ. Very few zoom macro lenses can come close to primes. Would generally avoid, unless you really need an all in one solution with zoom capabilities

Macro prime lens

Now you're talking! Especially the newer ones (last few decades) that have fast aperture and allow true 1:1 magnification. These are all pretty great, be it Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, Zeiss.. Easy to use, great magnification, top image quality, many features, and you can still add one of the options below, if you want to go beyond 1:1.

Macro glass filters

Most are not great, but Raynox has pretty good reputation. Most of the noname macro filters will degrade the IQ a lot

Bellows

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

Extension tubes

Same comments as bellows above, but might be a tad easier to use. Beware of super cheap noname tubes online, because sometimes they are not machined very well

You have one more option, which is lens reversal.

Anyway, I vote for macro prime. It can be an older macro prime from the 1980s or a new one. You won't regret it. The new ones are top top performers. I think the DA 35mm macro and DFA 50mm and DFA 100mm are very reasonably priced and they deliver pro quality. The other options will give you only IQ as good as the lens you mount, with some reduction due to extra distance and surfaces.
Keep in mind a macro prime has many uses beyond macro. You can use it for bug photography, product photography, landscapes, still life, even portraits. Macro lenses are great overall

[WPRESTO]

Sandy and Na Horuk have both recommended RAYNOX close up attachments. These are no-contest the least expensive, best quality way to get into macro. I did extensive tests with my stable of dedicated macro lenses, bellows & tubes, lens-lens reversing rings etc. etc. and RAYNOX LENSES ATTACHED TO A DECENT LENS WILL PROVIDE COMPETITIVE TO MATCHING IQ and they are, again, inexpensive and simple to use. The quality of the results depends on the quality of the lens to which they are attached, but I've both obtained and seen outstanding macros done with a Raynox attached to a wide variety of prime and zoom lenses.

Do you hear my enthusiasm? Raynox are absolutely the best way to start macro work. For $120 or so for the basic two lenses plus the extremely convenient snap-on adapter you cannot go wrong.

If there is one shortcoming or problem with the Raynox: the weaker unit that Raynox calls 1.5X has a MAXIMUM focus distance regardless of the lens to which it is attached of only 8 inches. This leaves some near-macro, more close-up subjects such as larger flowers much too large to fit into the frame when using the Raynox unit. To some extent this can be solved by attaching the Raynox to a shorter focal length lens, although vignetting limits how wide you can go.

AND BTW: My stable of dedicated macro lenses: Pentax DA 35mm; Pentax 50mm f2.8 SMCA; Tokina 90mm f2.5; Pentax DA 100mm f2.8, Sigma 150mm f2.8, Pentax 200mm f4 SMCA, and Olympus 60mm f2.8 (for MFT).

[jeryst]

Thanks for all of the great information.

I'm on a very tight budget so buying a newer macro lens is not an option,
especially since I am just going to experiment.

Buying an older manual macro is an option, but then I'm stuck with only
one focal length, which is why I asked about which focal length would be best.

I have scrounged some nice old manual lenses, so manual focusing is
not a problem since I do that anyways.

Filters seemed limiting because they will only fit lenses with the same size threads.

[TER-OR]

Focal length will be dictated by what you're doing. I use a 100mm FA series lens in the field, occasionally I'd like a longer lens but this is good and allows close focus. It's not as good for still life or plants etc. where a shorter lens is better. I have a Sigma 28mm macro which is useful for this.

It's a lot of practice, figuring out how the lens and camera work together. Take your time and don't get frustrated.

Used 100mm (or similar range) are available pretty frequently, add some watch terms in the Marketplace.

---------- Post added 12-20-17 at 08:07 AM ----------

Buying an older manual macro is an option, but then I'm stuck with only
one focal length, which is why I asked about which focal length would be best.

What kind of photography are you interested in?

[Skodadriver]

Filters seemed limiting because they will only fit lenses with the same size threads.

Step up or step down filter rings could be an inexpensive way of utilising a screw in filter type close up lens. Obviously you may need to crop out any vignetting, I have a few that came with a £10 "wide angle" lens, cheap and cheerful but I have not has any problem fitting or removing them so would imagine the Chinese bargains in auction should be alright to use.

[CarlJF]

The "best" certainly is a dedicated macro prime lens, although not the cheapest option. But you can buy a used one and if you find out that macrophotography isn't for you, you can still resell the lens without losing much money.

All the other options can work, but if you become even half interested in macro photography you'll end up buying a true macro lens anyway. If you don't like macro photography with a macro lens, you could at least say that you give it a real try. With the other options you will wonder if things would have gone better with a real macro lens...

[TER-OR]

Pentax-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro Lens - Reduced - PentaxForums.com

That's a steal.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/353395-sa...ellent-ff.html

That's very good.