Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-29-2018, 11:32 AM - 1 Like   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,497
I put a 52 to 49mm step down ring on my DA 18-55 (first series, from mid-2000's) and it doesn't vignette, or if it does it's not been noticeable. That has allowed me to use 49mm filters and such on that lens when I've wanted to. Like you, I wasn't very happy with the DA-L 50-200, until I started using it just for really close up stuff and not what I would consider a normal telephoto lens to be used for. Shooting birds? No, thanks, not that happy with the results. Shooting pictures of a plant less than 10 feet away? Okay, decent performance.

I doubt that you'll see much, if any, difference at all with some step rings to change where the magnifying filter is relative to the lens front element.

01-29-2018, 11:43 AM - 1 Like   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,064
The Hoya and perhaps the cokin are not the apochromat multilens type of close up lenses I am talking about. However you generally can use close up filters on later lenses with a step up ring without vignetting. I use a 62mm Nikon 6T on a 77mm DA* 200 and it works as well as the Canon 500d 77mm. Both work well with good resolution and no noticable vignetting.

The Raynox lenses work well also but I don't have an appropriate ring to attach them to the DA* 200 for a direct comparison.
01-29-2018, 11:49 AM - 1 Like   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,862
I would recommend the Raynox units for use on the 135mm, but I think that lens has a 49mm filter thread so you'd need an additional adapter (step-up ring to at least 52mm = the smallest size that the Raynox quick-mount will fit).

Several people have mentioned the 90mm Tamron macro. Essentially all versions of this lens are really good, certainly as good and almost certainly better than any of the lenses you now own. It is definitely the bargain lens among macros. Just about impossible to beat the combination of price and IQ. Also, macros of 90~105mm are probably the most versatile/useful focal length. 50mm is fine for flowers, but the working distance is really too short if you want to do insects (or rattle snakes). 180~200mm is great for insects, but long for something the size of a rose, and much more expensive.
01-29-2018, 11:59 AM - 1 Like   #19
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,559
at one time I had this lens

Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Tele-Macro [1:2] (Model 772D)

Read more at: Tamron Lenses for Pentax: Legacy Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

it isn't 1:1 but 1:2 isn't bad and it would get you a useable telephoto zoom

if you can find one in good shape

there are several variations of that 70-300mm made by Tamron

you can find the reviews under the " lenses ' link above

01-29-2018, 12:31 PM - 2 Likes   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 793
I know you already stated your preference for 100mm focal length. But don't disappoint yourself by spending on a 100mm non-Pentax macro. Yes they may be great or just as good but they are not Pentax renderings at the end of the day.
D-FA100mm is a WR and is a great lens and can be had new for about $350 when on sale brand new. Hang in there until it gets to that price some time this year.
OR
A-50/f2.8, D-FA50/2.8 are awesome (I also have the F-50 macro btw). I still prefer and use my A50 variant more often than the D-FA50 Macro or F-50 Macro despite needing manual focus (which is a pleasure to use). All macros are sharp and will reveal obscene amount of details that no zooms will ever produce. A50 is a resolution monster and I am amazed how old this lens is and still performant. Once you get used to this dedicated Macro cleanliness you will start to dislike your zooms a little bit which is a side effect.
If you want to play safe and do not want 1:1 macro then DA35/f2.8 macro is another resolution monster which can be had for a decent price new.

If you are up for a kidney then there are a couple of A200/f4 macros on sale on ebay. Jokes apart.. I think the A variants of the Pentax Macros have something in them that the other macros do not offer. And there are 3 of them.. (A50/f2.8, A100/f2.8 and A200/f4 out there to scout for).
01-29-2018, 01:02 PM - 1 Like   #21
amateur dirt farmer
Loyal Site Supporter
pepperberry farm's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: probably out in a field somewhere...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,131
QuoteOriginally posted by shardulm Quote

...If you are up for a kidney then there are a couple of A200/f4 macros on sale on ebay. Jokes apart.. I think the A variants of the Pentax Macros have something in them that the other macros do not offer. And there are 3 of them.. (A50/f2.8, A100/f2.8 and A200/f4 out there to scout for).

and don't miss out on the A 100mm f4 Macro...
01-29-2018, 02:32 PM - 1 Like   #22
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,559
If the price of a D FA 100mm Macro WR is under consideration but over budget consider that

" The optical design [ of the 100mm macro WR ] is the tried-and-proven formula of the previous generation D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, which in turn had inherited the optical design from the well-respected FA 100mm F2.8 and F 100mm F2.8 macro lenses introduced in 1991 and 1987, respectively. None of these earlier lenses had rounded aperture blades. . . . "

Read more at: Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Review - Specifications | PentaxForums.com Reviews

yes there are differences between the WR version and the earlier versions

the question is whether the differences are worth the price for what you want to do

01-29-2018, 05:59 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Posts: 310
How about Vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro? Just search it on EvilBay and found one priced @$51.00 with free shipping in M42 mount.

BTW, it comes with 1:1 magnification.
01-29-2018, 06:33 PM - 1 Like   #24
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,559
as i understand it, the shorter the focal length of your macro lens, the closer you must be to your target:

What the Focal Length is Going On Here?

So, why invest in a 180/3.5 lens if it will only achieve the same level of magnification at closest focus as a 60/2.8? The simple answer is distance from the subject. When shooting a diamond ring, for example, it is far easier to do creative lighting when you are two feet from the subject (as you would be with a 180/3.5) versus the nine inches you would have with a 60/2.8 at the same 1:1 magnification. - Which Focal Length Macro Lens Is Best For You? | Expert photography blogs, tip, techniques, camera reviews - Adorama Learning Center
___________________________

For many situations, you will probably want a comfortable working distance, nothing too close or too far from your subject. This explains why the short telephoto macro lenses are among the most popular. The 90-105mm range is filled with options and provides a great balance of distance and performance without making the lens itself unwieldy or intimidating. In some instances, such as when shooting easily startled insects or when distance is desired, there are even longer options available. Going up to the 180mm and 200mm range, you will find some serviceable telephotos to get you close without requiring you to be right on top of your subject. Additionally, with these lenses you will have space to use larger lighting equipment without getting in the way of the light. - How to Pick a Focal Length for Macro Photography | B&H Explora

______________________________________________

Minimum focus and working distance
The “minimum focusing distance” lens specification can be confusing. Minimum focusing distance is measured from the subject to the rear focal point of the lens, which is at the image sensor plane in the camera body. The term “working distance” is used to describe the distance between the subject and the front element of the lens.

If a lens is specified as having a 0.2 m (20 cm) minimum focusing distance, for example, depending on the thickness of the camera body and the length of the lens, you might only have a few centimeters of working distance when focused at the minimum focusing distance in order to take a 1:1 macro shot. Being that close to your subject can make lighting difficult (special macro flashes and ring lights are available to overcome this type of lighting problem), focusing can be difficult if the subject or camera moves even slightly, and you’re likely to scare away living subjects at such close distances. If any of those problems occur, you need to choose a macro lens that has a longer focal length for more working distance. - What is Macro Photography | What is a Macro Lens | Sony US

____________________________________________________________________________________

so a 35mm macro has a shorter working distance than a 50mm macro which has a shorter working distance than a 100mm macro but all might be capable of 1:1 magnification

if you are photographing an object that doesn't move, that is one thing, one that moves and could be spooked by how close your are - well that is another

Last edited by aslyfox; 01-29-2018 at 08:42 PM.
01-29-2018, 10:20 PM - 1 Like   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 793
QuoteOriginally posted by pepperberry farm Quote
and don't miss out on the A 100mm f4 Macro...
And that one. ..
01-30-2018, 02:30 AM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,813
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Aslyfox Quote
as i understand it, the shorter the focal length of your macro lens, the closer you must be to your target:

What the Focal Length is Going On Here?

So, why invest in a 180/3.5 lens if it will only achieve the same level of magnification at closest focus as a 60/2.8? The simple answer is distance from the subject. When shooting a diamond ring, for example, it is far easier to do creative lighting when you are two feet from the subject (as you would be with a 180/3.5) versus the nine inches you would have with a 60/2.8 at the same 1:1 magnification. - Which Focal Length Macro Lens Is Best For You? | Expert photography blogs, tip, techniques, camera reviews - Adorama Learning Center
___________________________

For many situations, you will probably want a comfortable working distance, nothing too close or too far from your subject. This explains why the short telephoto macro lenses are among the most popular. The 90-105mm range is filled with options and provides a great balance of distance and performance without making the lens itself unwieldy or intimidating. In some instances, such as when shooting easily startled insects or when distance is desired, there are even longer options available. Going up to the 180mm and 200mm range, you will find some serviceable telephotos to get you close without requiring you to be right on top of your subject. Additionally, with these lenses you will have space to use larger lighting equipment without getting in the way of the light. - How to Pick a Focal Length for Macro Photography | B&H Explora

______________________________________________

Minimum focus and working distance
The “minimum focusing distance” lens specification can be confusing. Minimum focusing distance is measured from the subject to the rear focal point of the lens, which is at the image sensor plane in the camera body. The term “working distance” is used to describe the distance between the subject and the front element of the lens.

If a lens is specified as having a 0.2 m (20 cm) minimum focusing distance, for example, depending on the thickness of the camera body and the length of the lens, you might only have a few centimeters of working distance when focused at the minimum focusing distance in order to take a 1:1 macro shot. Being that close to your subject can make lighting difficult (special macro flashes and ring lights are available to overcome this type of lighting problem), focusing can be difficult if the subject or camera moves even slightly, and you’re likely to scare away living subjects at such close distances. If any of those problems occur, you need to choose a macro lens that has a longer focal length for more working distance. - What is Macro Photography | What is a Macro Lens | Sony US

____________________________________________________________________________________

so a 35mm macro has a shorter working distance than a 50mm macro which has a shorter working distance than a 100mm macro but all might be capable of 1:1 magnification

if you are photographing an object that doesn't move, that is one thing, one that moves and could be spooked by how close your are - well that is another
Excellent post, thank you. When I first posted I didn’t know much about macro photography, now I am really glad I asked
01-30-2018, 07:52 AM - 1 Like   #27
Pentaxian
Thagomizer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London Ontario
Posts: 2,068
Some links to loads of useful information and ideas:

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

Extreme Macro Photography
01-30-2018, 09:03 AM - 1 Like   #28
Pentaxian
cyberjunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chiang Mai, Bologna, Amsterdam
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
QuoteOriginally posted by shardulm Quote
I know you already stated your preference for 100mm focal length. But don't disappoint yourself by spending on a 100mm non-Pentax macro. Yes they may be great or just as good but they are not Pentax renderings at the end of the day.
Let's not exceed the limit between brand appreciation and fanboyism
The first three versions of the 100mm macro f/4 have the same optical layout as the old Micro-Nikkor (5 elements, Heliar/Dynar type). Good enough today, very good in its time, but not on par with more modern options, starting with the Pentax-A 2.8/100mm.
If I had to buy a cheap macro in the same focal range, I'd go for a Tamron 2.5/90mm. It's prone to the "light spot" problem in certain situations, but it doesn't happen too often, while the very high price/performance ratio can be taken for granted. It's cheap, sharp, and well built (especially the first version). With the PK/A adapter can be used with any exposure mode, and supports P-TTL.
There are three different versions of the same optical design: two MF (Adaptall-2) and one AF. I owned all of them at different times, and I can say that all of them are very good. I have no experience of the later f/2.8 models. They should be even better, but are not as affordable.

Cheers

Paolo

01-30-2018, 09:19 AM - 1 Like   #29
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by shardulm Quote
I know you already stated your preference for 100mm focal length. But don't disappoint yourself by spending on a 100mm non-Pentax macro. Yes they may be great or just as good but they are not Pentax renderings at the end of the day.
The Tamron 90 remains my wife's favourite lens. She likes it so much she uses it as walk around lens on APS-c. if she listened to you she'd be missing out. Just saying..

She has access to and has tried out the Pentax 50 macro, the Sigma 70 macro (which Imagine Resources uses in it's sensor tests) , and the Pentax 100 macro, so don't be thinking she just doesn't know any better.
01-30-2018, 09:30 AM - 1 Like   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,497
The Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro, sold under a number of other brand names such as Lester Dine and Vivitar, seems to be quite excellent. Might be available at the top end of your budget. Only issue may be slow or stuck aperture blades due to the lubricants Kiron used, although I don't know that this lens is as affected as others (24 and 28mm primes, for instance, seem to be hit with this often) and it can be fixed by someone that knows what they're doing.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, 24mm, aperture, apples, blades, brand, fa, k-mount, kiron, kiron 105mm f2.8, lenses, lubricants, macro, pentax, pentax lens, pentax-m, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which 50mm 2.8 Macro Pentax or Sigma or 100mm Macro? Craigbob Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 05-21-2017 06:06 PM
Which lenses were originally sold with which cameras (kit zooms)? OldChE Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 13 03-16-2017 07:39 PM
Macro Auto Bellows - which macro lens - Takumar Bellows 100 or "normal" Takumar Macro 100? clickclick Photographic Technique 11 01-25-2017 04:55 PM
Parlor Game: Which lens is which? mee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 50 04-23-2016 09:52 AM
Which is which macro? old vs new rp_dxn Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 09-27-2013 05:48 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top