Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-03-2007, 07:14 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 67
Close-up lens?

Hi everybody,

I want to get some close-up lens to use MACRO, I have DA 50-200 and M 50mm F/1.7... one is 52mm and another is 49mm.

Which is more practical for MACRO use? 49mm or 52mm? 50-200 hs more zoom capacity and auto focus, 50mm is a faster lens with F/1.7...

Also any good brand recommandation? I've heart people use Canon 250D closeup lens with 50-200 and great result. I also saw Hoya 49mm for 35$ on ebay.

Thx a lot...

03-03-2007, 07:28 AM   #2
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,493
I don't think the filter thread diameter has any relevance here, but I could be wrong. I have a set of 58mm close-up lenses. I use a step-up ring to use them with my smaller diameter lenses.

I have gotten good results with my DA18-55 lens and my M 50mm 1.4 lens, but have not gotten good results with my DA 50-200. Haven't worked at it too hard yet, though.
03-03-2007, 09:04 AM   #3
Veteran Member
FotoPete's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,710
The DA50-200mm has a minimum focusing distance of like a little over a metre so its going to be a bit had to do macro shots.

If you really wanted a quick macro solution, get a 49mm reverse ring for your 50/1.7. they only cost like $5-10 on ebay.
03-03-2007, 09:53 AM   #4
roy
Inactive Account
roy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: D/FW area, Tx.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,712
QuoteOriginally posted by FotoPete Quote
The DA50-200mm has a minimum focusing distance of like a little over a metre so its going to be a bit had to do macro shots.

If you really wanted a quick macro solution, get a 49mm reverse ring for your 50/1.7. they only cost like $5-10 on ebay.
or make one with a twist in body cap and ring.
f1.7 is rather useless when doing macros. you want DOF so smaller apertures are wanted. i've got a set of hoya's +!,+2,+3 if you want them.

03-04-2007, 01:50 PM   #5
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 67
Original Poster
roy: for what size? 49mm or 52mm?

I never like the idea of reverse ring... I guess I will go with closeup lens with 50-200...
03-04-2007, 03:12 PM   #6
roy
Inactive Account
roy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: D/FW area, Tx.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,712
they are 62mm. i got them large so i could use them on different lenses. you'll need a stepup ring to use them and i'd suggest a 62mm lens hood. you're in canada tho so postage is higher.
03-04-2007, 11:08 PM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 296
It all depends (as usual) on what you want to achieve, where, when and how.
For an easy to use 'quick fix', supplimentary lenses that screw onto the filter threads can be quite good but they will degrade the image due to the increased number of reflecting surfaces and will usually produce distortion and softness at the edges, especially at wider apertures.
In the field my preference was for extension tubes which are mounted between the lens and camera body. They are relatively robust, do not interfere with the light path and can be bought with fully automatic coupling.
They are limited in that they come in fixed distances and therefore some manipulation of the lens to subject distance (moving the whole outfit to and fro) might be neccessary.
For studio work, the bellows extention, fitted between lens and body, is the ultimate. These can be combined in series or with other tubes/rings to produce extreme magnifications.
N.B. Where the lens to film/sensor plane distance becomes greater than the lens to subject distance reversing the lens by means of an adapter makes the most of the lens design. i.e. The lens is designed to have the film/sensor close by and the subject some greater distance away. This reversing usually requires that you go completely 'manual'.
Lighting and exposure is most often a case of trial and error althought there are formulae for calculating them. As always, I suggest hunting down the relevant topic in your local library or elsewhere.
As I mentioned in a comment in a previous thread, chilling/freezing subjects like flies and insects can gain you time to make adjustments before they re-animate and buzz off. The old plastic film canisters made excellent containers for this purpose.
I hope that this helps a little

Ciao 4 Nao

Rolly
03-04-2007, 11:19 PM   #8
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Close up filters or lenses would require aperture stopping down to at least f8 to get sharper images. Image quality does compromise to an extent, worse than what you get with extension tubes

Examples of failed shost from 2+ filters ...

Shot with Fa 77 ltd f2.0 - doesn't this shot look a bit dizzy



Then stopping down to f9.5



03-04-2007, 11:27 PM   #9
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 296
QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
Close up filters or lenses would require aperture stopping down to at least f8 to get sharper images. Image quality does compromise to an extent, worse than what you get with extension tubes

Examples of failed shost from 2+ filters ...

Shot with Fa 77 ltd f2.0 - doesn't this shot look a bit dizzy
Yea, indeed, but what an opportunity to use abberrations like this to creative effect.
I must have a bit of a play with this sometime.
03-05-2007, 02:10 AM   #10
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by Rolly Quote
Yea, indeed, but what an opportunity to use abberrations like this to creative effect.
I must have a bit of a play with this sometime.
Yeah, it could be fun but hard to predict the quality of the shots with filters.

Somehow I love close up filter 3+ the most since it gives a lot of unpredictable results. Close up filters are quite cheap anyway and they tend to give the effect of a soft focus lens
03-09-2007, 11:36 AM   #11
Veteran Member
GLThorne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA - South Carolina
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 374
Some say that a $40 kit of close up filters can in no way match that of a true macro lens. I say, that if you can use them and make them look good, who cares!

All three of these come from the 18-55mm kit lens and a hoya +4 filter at F5.6. The 3rd one was actually taken at the first of the series but the wind was blowing a bit much so I popped up the built in and strapped on the diffuser panel and shot the rest.





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!
49mm, 50mm, 52mm, close-up, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Close-up lens elandel Photographic Technique 9 04-25-2011 01:13 PM
Close Up Lens CateKerr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 04-23-2011 03:49 PM
S25 close up lens jolepp Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 12-16-2010 08:32 AM
Close-up lens rodneysan Pentax Medium Format 11 06-01-2010 03:59 PM
Close up lens for a K1000? RottenLuck Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 02-06-2010 11:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:52 PM. | 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