[midnightvisions]

Thanks again for the advice and encouragement. Yes life is a learning experience, some lessons are easy, some not so much.
Based on the options you all mentioned, I decided on the SMC DA-15mm F4. Found one on ebay in mint / used condition, the close up pictures showing no flaws so I bought it. I saw the comparisons between that and the new HD lens, and I found myself liking the non HD better. The Peta Pixel web site had a few well done shots using this lens as well

I want to change the subject of this post slightly,

Does the collective minds have any suggestions for taking pictures with macro lenses? I've seen pictures of insects close up to seeing details in the bugs eyes and no idea how it was done. I've bought some macro extension adapters to use with my lenses and never got the results that others have. I've read of people making adapters that place two lenses back to back, but have never seen that actually done, or any of those adapters sold.

My interests are not just in insects, but also macro electronics, Surface mount components repair and modification need to magnify an area of 20mm square down to 1mm. I have not seen any Pentax lenses do that. Can the collective offer any advice on how to do that?

[BigMackCam]

Congratulations on the DA15 f/4 - I'm sure you'll love it, it's a very fine lens.

As for extreme macro (which is what you're describing), one of our members (and my fellow moderator) @Nass is very experienced and accomplished in this area. He has a great website that will give you all the information you need:

http://extreme-macro.co.uk

[Scorpio71GR]

Macro work is an entirely different aspect of photography. Different techniques and different rules. With macro as magnification goes up so does the importance of proper technique. Once you reach full 1:1 life size reproduction forget about shake reduction. Use a tripod or a very high speed shutter. You want use a small apeture say f11 for maximum depth of field. Sometimes I will even use f16-f22. A more complex way is to take mutiple shots a focused at different levels and stack them in software. This is known as focus stacking. If you are looking at an affordable way to get into macro I would suggest the Raynox Raynox DCR-250 reviews - Pentax Camera Accessory Review Database many people love them. A good dedicated macro is nice way to go. The Tamron 90mm macro is an excellent lens and seems to sell for way less than it is worth. I like to use a flash but you need to use one that will be able to utilize high speed sync (HSS) or a shutter speed above 1/180s. I use a Pentax AF540FGZII but they are not cheap. Getting enough light will always be a struggle with macro. I have a portable LED light that I will use to help illuminate my subject. Another way is to use a light box. In macro work focus is critical. On inanimate subjects manual focus in Liveview with magnification is recommended.

Your DA 10-17 is capable of pseudo macro work. It has an extremely close minimum focus distance. This was shot with a K3, DA 10-17, an LED light off the right, and an on board flash with a diffuser. The camera was a small mini tripod.

[BigMackCam]

The Tamron 90mm macro is an excellent lens and seems to sell for way less than it is worth.

I have that lens in Sony A-mount, and it's a fantastic bit of glass. Dare I say, I slightly prefer it to my D FA100 WR, although that's also excellent.

[normhead]

I have that lens in Sony A-mount, and it's a fantastic bit of glass. Dare I say, I slightly prefer it to my D FA100 WR, although that's also excellent.

IN my macro lens poll, the 90 macro and 100 Macro tied for first place in the polling.

MY wife prefers the 90. I don't really have a preference. But the 90 lives in her lens cupboard and the 100 lives in mine so I usually I take the 100. And out in the wild the 100 is WR. We once had to dry out the 90 after an unfortunate incident, that involved a lens change, a rock slope with a lake at the bottom. It's amazing how fast those little suckers can move if they get away from you.

The 90 was one of the top rated lenses on every platform on DxO.

[aslyfox]

if money is an issue [ when isn't it ? ] remember that the glass in the earlier versions of the Pentax D FA 100 F2.8 Macro WR has the same optics except the blades are rounded in the WR:

" The optical design 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."

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

so if you wish to obtain " experienced " equipment, you might want to check those out to save some money

_________________________________________

I have 2 macros, the SMC Pentax-DA 25mm F2.8 Macro Limited and the SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro

both are very good lenses overall

I like using the DFA 100 for macro in the field because I don't have to be as close to my targer to ger 1:1

[Scorpio71GR]

IN my macro lens poll, the 90 macro and 100 Macro tied for first place in the polling.

MY wife prefers the 90. I don't really have a preference. But the 90 lives in her lens cupboard and the 100 lives in mine so I usually I take the 100. And out in the wild the 100 is WR. We once had to dry out the 90 after an unfortunate incident, that involved a lens change, a rock slope with a lake at the bottom. It's amazing how fast those little suckers can move if they get away from you.

The 90 was one of the top rated lenses on every platform on DxO.

At times I think the Tamron 90 is sharper than my DFA 100 WR, but it really is close between the two. I use the DFA 100 WR simply because of the reduced size and weight. Plus the WR and quick shift are definitely a plus. The Tamron has the focus limiter which I miss. Plus with the apeture ring on the Tamron can use extension tubes. Something I really have no interest in anymore. I have seen those Tamron 90's sell for around 200 US Dollars. One other thing with the Tamron is that the front element is so far recessed the use of the hood is essentially unnecessary like the FA 50 macro.

[BigMackCam]

IN my macro lens poll, the 90 macro and 100 Macro tied for first place in the polling.

MY wife prefers the 90. I don't really have a preference. But the 90 lives in her lens cupboard and the 100 lives in mine so I usually I take the 100. And out in the wild the 100 is WR. We once had to dry out the 90 after an unfortunate incident, that involved a lens change, a rock slope with a lake at the bottom. It's amazing how fast those little suckers can move if they get away from you.

The 90 was one of the top rated lenses on every platform on DxO.

If I remember correctly, I think I picked out the Tamron in your poll...

In tests, I seem to recall the D FA100 WR fares very slightly better in terms of CA, out-of-focus highlight shape when stopped down a little, and wide open performance in general. But there's something I can't quite put my finger on with the rendering of the Tamron that I really like. I don't think I could tell you what it is I see, or why I see it... whatever it is, it's very subtle.

I like the focus limiter on the Tamron, too. It's a pity they left that off the D FA100 WR, having included it on earlier versions. And even though the body is synthetic, I like the way it feels in use.

I also think I might be just a little biased... I bought my Tamron used, in like new condition, with a last-minute bid on an eBay auction, and I paid a pittance for it (even compared to the already-competitive retail price). I love a bargain, which for me equates to something that's both cheap and good. I couldn't believe the IQ I got for so little money (easily one of my best performance vs cost purchases). My D FA100 WR was also a bargain - I bought it new, but it was very heavily discounted in a sale. Even so, it was around twice what I paid for the Tammy

All things considered, they're both fantastic lenses...

[UncleVanya]

There are two things I don't like about the DFA 100 WR... lack of aperture ring, and lack of focus limiter. Those would be the only things I really want changed.

[Des]

There are two things I don't like about the DFA 100 WR... lack of aperture ring, and lack of focus limiter. Those would be the only things I really want changed.

Why the aperture ring UV? For use on a film camera?

Focus limiter would be nice, and so would HD coatings, but neither need be a deal-breaker.The DFA 100 is just such a wonderful lens.


Whether for macro ..






Or close focus ...


Or conventional flower shots ...




Or birds that are close ...




Or other wildlife ...




Or landscapes ...

[BigMackCam]

... The DFA 100 is just such a wonderful lens.

Whether for macro ..

Or close focus ...

Or conventional flower shots ...

Or birds that are close ...

Or other wildlife ...

Or landscapes ...

Yes... I'd say your copy is working out fairly well...

Seriously, those are beautiful

[Des]

Yes... I'd say your copy is working out fairly well...

Seriously, those are beautiful

Thanks very much Mike.

To the OP, I would make three points. First, you can do macro in many ways, but a dedicated macro lens is the easiest (although not the cheapest) way. Second, as I was trying to show, a macro lens has many uses besides macro. They are known for their excellent resolution at various apertures, and their capacity for sharpness from corner to corner. The trade-off is that they are usually slow to autofocus, because they tend to have a long focus throw to allow for fine manual focusing. Third, it's often said that there is no such thing as a bad macro lens, just very good or excellent. The DFA 100 is great, but there are other highly regarded lenses too that are cheaper, including earlier versions of the Pentax 100mm macros, the Sigma 105mm, the Tamron 90mm, and various iterations of the Pentax 50mm macro. There's also the much-loved Pentax DA 35mm f2.8 Limited macro. You can get 1:1 macro from lenses of various focal lengths - the difference is that with shorter focal lengths the lens must be closer to the subject to get 1:1 reproduction. For insects and other moving subjects, that isn't always practical, which is why macros in the 90mm-105mm tend to be more popular. Anyway you already have 35mm and 50mm well covered with the plastic fantastic primes.

[UncleVanya]

Why the aperture ring UV? For use on a film camera?

No, my film camera of choice is a PZ-1 which doesn't need the ring. But I also have a bellows and rings and reversing adapters. I would experiment with those if I were able to with this lens more easily. As it is I tend to use other lenses for that experimentation.

I completely agree that the lens is lovely.

[Des]

But I also have a bellows and rings and reversing adapters. I would experiment with those if I were able to with this lens more easily. As it is I tend to use other lenses for that experimentation.

Ah that makes sense.

[UncleVanya]

Ah that makes sense.

To be fair I have an adapter I can use when reversed (K to m43) that has a stepless aperture control ring on it so I could do that. But the DFA 100 doesn't inspire confidence in the build when reversed. That lens is so much more delicate than the older F/FA 100 macro... perhaps I would be able to use it with my newer A series type extension rings.