Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

mjp29 · 01-24-2021, 05:57 AM

Handheld what's a good F to use with SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro when shooting closest macro shots?

normhead · 01-24-2021, 06:31 AM

ƒ8 and be there.

Typically you want more DoF for macros unless it's 2 dimensional subject like a coin. You might want to try ƒ11 or ƒ16, 22 on a K-1, but that will most often require the use of a tripod.

With most lenses ƒ5.6 is the sharpest but ƒ8 and ƒ11 aren't bad. ƒ16 and 22 still look good enough for most usage.

dlhawes · 01-24-2021, 06:57 AM - **5 Likes**

I just now posted a new thread in the "beginners' help" section that covers this really well, but it's just a link to a good youtube vid:

You Tube

normhead · 01-24-2021, 07:02 AM - **5 Likes**

Great find...

He doesn't demo focus assist on live view or tilt screens, the only two omissions I can see.

Another thing he fails to mention, although ƒ22 may be diffraction limited sometimes ƒ22 is the best image. in any case. His video fails to point that out.

Last edited by normhead; 01-24-2021 at 07:27 AM.

mjp29 · 01-24-2021, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by dlhawes

I just now posted a new thread in the "beginners' help" section that covers this really well, but it's just a link to a good youtube vid: An Introduction To Macro Photography - YouTube

Very informative video!
What is the lens I've posted about: 1:1 or 1:2 ?

Ausable · 01-24-2021, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by mjp29

Very informative video!
What is the lens I've posted about: 1:1 or 1:2 ?

It is 1:2. See SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

mjp29 · 01-24-2021, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Ausable

It is 1:2. See SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

So, according to his video, "technically speaking," 1:2 is not macro. Or do I have things backwards.

**JensE** · 01-24-2021, 09:22 AM

It is macro, by traditional definitions - which some challenge. It definitely gives you that "larger than live" feel.

mjp29 · 01-24-2021, 09:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by JensE

It is macro, by traditional definitions - which some challenge. It definitely gives you that "larger than live" feel.

Definitely!

The first picture I took with the lens (my sister's eye):

normhead · 01-24-2021, 09:49 AM - **2 Likes**

1:1 macro means same size on the sensor.
1:5 macro may mean smaller on the sensor (probably less than one fifth the size) , but larger than the subject when view as an inside image, either digital or analogue.

These are two different things. Both called macro, hence the confusion.

You really have to listen to the context to determine which is being discussed. It is by definition an imprecise term in common usage.

My bird image taken with my 300 2.8 are much larger than life size on my 55 inch 4k TV. I don't consider them to be macros. Similarly, with smaller objects, the fact that they are lartger tha life on abi monitor or whatever, shouldn't qualify them s macros. That term used that way has no meaning.

We're getting into an area where the term macro could only be applied if you know what screen you're looking at. On my 27 inch 4k monitor it's macro, on my pad, it's not. We're moving into a definition of macro that doesn't really define anything.

What kind of definition is that?

This image is much larger than life on my 27 inch monitor, does that make it a macro?

Why or why not?

A definition has to define something. What is the definition to 1:5 macro, that would disqualify this image as a macro image. I doubt many consider it a macro.

We are moving towards definition that doesn't define anything, virtually useless. If Im using a definitlon that allows me to call anything a macro, based on how big the final image is, on my 55 inch screen half my photographs are macros as there are elements that are much larger than life. The term means nothing. It requires no macro-lenses or any other equipment. My DFA 18-135 and DFA 28-105. will do. I consider those to be pseudo macro, and think it's absolute necessary to differentiate the skill set that requires hand holding a kit lens and and getting the most out of a macro lens.

From a teaching perspective these are different skill sets, they need to be labelled as such.

I'm just trying to avoid confusion here. Wonder what those who think anything as low as 1:10 can be macro depending on the final display size are tying to accomplish. (Is an image that's not larger than life size on your phone but is on your 27 inch monitor still called a macro? ) What are those with a looser definition trying to accomplish with their definition?

One the idea that any image from any camera with any lens taken close to minimum focussing distance can be macro, the term has been diminished to meaninglessness..

**JensE** · 01-24-2021, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by normhead

What kind of definition is that?

If you refer to 'It definitely gives you that "larger than live" feel', it's none at all. It's a subjective observation, which the word "feel" implies.

Not totally unfounded though. It has something to do with the closest clear focusing distance of the eye (considered around 30cm, highly dependent on age), determining the smallest detail your naked eye can resolve, and how this tiny detail appears e.g. on a print at its "usual viewing distance" = diagonal, for a large enough print to clearly view from that distance. It's of course all dependent on the sensor size, but for APS-C and 35mm formats, a shot taken at 2:1 yields the sense of seeing a lot smaller detail. A Pentax-Q needs a lot less magnification to achieve that, a Pentax 6x7 a bit more.

**AstroDave** · 01-24-2021, 01:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by JensE

(considered around 30cm, highly dependent on age)

And whether you are near-sighted. I am 75 (in three weeks) and quite near-sighted (my distance glasses are around -5 diopters; I need to move up closer to make out the big E on the eye-guy's chart). But, I can readily focus at 10-15 cm for close-up work without glasses. (And will threaten to kill my opthalmologist when I need cataract surgery if he refuses to keep that capability! They want to set you up with new for-distance lenses. I haven't been able to see at a distance without glasses since I was 10 years old, so I am used to things as they are.).

**JensE** · 01-24-2021, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by AstroDave

And whether you are near-sighted. I am 75 (in three weeks) and quite near-sighted (my distance glasses are around -5 diopters; I need to move up closer to make out the big E on the eye-guy's chart). But, I can readily focus at 10-15 cm for close-up work without glasses. (And will threaten to kill my opthalmologist when I need cataract surgery if he refuses to keep that capability! They want to set you up with new for-distance lenses. I haven't been able to see at a distance without glasses since I was 10 years old, so I am used to things as they are.).

Not unknown in our house either

Just checked (some German books, wikipedia): The agreed upon distance, e.g. to calculate magnification of a magnifying glass, seems to be 250mm.

35mmfilmfan · 01-24-2021, 04:26 PM

Does it have to be hand-held ? When I am using my Sigma 105mm 'macro' lens for close-up photography (not to open a further can of worms seeking a definition of macro !), I find a monopod with Manfrotto 804RC2 3-way head and ring flash gives results with which I am happy. Not knowing the size of the subject matter or its movement characteristics, it is hard to offer advice - plants, flowers, fungi etc are often easier then insects, spiders, etc, but the ring flash (not an LED ring light - they do not freeze movement as does a flash) can usually freeze motion.

As for eyesight, my distance glasses are fine for most uses, but I need to take my reading glasses to be able to use Live View ! Then, of course, I can't see any subjects in the distance clearly.

**pentaxus** · 01-24-2021, 07:18 PM

The first macro lens was the Kilfitt Macro Kilar of 1955. It was available in a half life size (1:2) or lifesize (1:1) version. Most macro lenses until the 1990's were half life size lenses ( an exception was the original macro Takumar which was a 1:1). In the late 1970's "macro zoom" lenses were marketed. At best they were quarter life size (1:4). With few exceptions, a lens designed specifically for macro will be either a 1:1 or 1:2 (135mm lens for 67 1:3 is an exception).

01-24-2021, 05:57 AM	#1
mjp29 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 32	Handheld what's a good F to use with SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro Handheld what's a good F to use with SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro when shooting closest macro shots?

01-24-2021, 09:49 AM - 2 Likes	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	1:1 macro means same size on the sensor. 1:5 macro may mean smaller on the sensor (probably less than one fifth the size) , but larger than the subject when view as an inside image, either digital or analogue. These are two different things. Both called macro, hence the confusion. You really have to listen to the context to determine which is being discussed. It is by definition an imprecise term in common usage. My bird image taken with my 300 2.8 are much larger than life size on my 55 inch 4k TV. I don't consider them to be macros. Similarly, with smaller objects, the fact that they are lartger tha life on abi monitor or whatever, shouldn't qualify them s macros. That term used that way has no meaning. We're getting into an area where the term macro could only be applied if you know what screen you're looking at. On my 27 inch 4k monitor it's macro, on my pad, it's not. We're moving into a definition of macro that doesn't really define anything. What kind of definition is that? This image is much larger than life on my 27 inch monitor, does that make it a macro? Why or why not? A definition has to define something. What is the definition to 1:5 macro, that would disqualify this image as a macro image. I doubt many consider it a macro. We are moving towards definition that doesn't define anything, virtually useless. If Im using a definitlon that allows me to call anything a macro, based on how big the final image is, on my 55 inch screen half my photographs are macros as there are elements that are much larger than life. The term means nothing. It requires no macro-lenses or any other equipment. My DFA 18-135 and DFA 28-105. will do. I consider those to be pseudo macro, and think it's absolute necessary to differentiate the skill set that requires hand holding a kit lens and and getting the most out of a macro lens. From a teaching perspective these are different skill sets, they need to be labelled as such. I'm just trying to avoid confusion here. Wonder what those who think anything as low as 1:10 can be macro depending on the final display size are tying to accomplish. (Is an image that's not larger than life size on your phone but is on your 27 inch monitor still called a macro? ) What are those with a looser definition trying to accomplish with their definition? One the idea that any image from any camera with any lens taken close to minimum focussing distance can be macro, the term has been diminished to meaninglessness.. Last edited by normhead; 01-24-2021 at 10:55 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vintage Pentax 100mm Macro F4 vs Modern Canon 100mm Macro F2.8	Digital Asylum	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	04-12-2023 01:45 AM
Do any of you use a handheld meter in conjunction with your dslr?	slackercruster	Photographic Technique	9	05-07-2012 09:04 PM
Which medium format (film) camera for handheld use?	noctilux	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	27	01-25-2012 02:52 PM
Is the 100mm F4 Macro SMC Takumar any good?	dude163	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	07-12-2010 04:40 PM
Why use a handheld light meter?	navcom	Photographic Technique	15	04-02-2008 05:20 AM

01-24-2021, 06:31 AM	#2
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	ƒ8 and be there. Typically you want more DoF for macros unless it's 2 dimensional subject like a coin. You might want to try ƒ11 or ƒ16, 22 on a K-1, but that will most often require the use of a tripod. With most lenses ƒ5.6 is the sharpest but ƒ8 and ƒ11 aren't bad. ƒ16 and 22 still look good enough for most usage.

01-24-2021, 07:02 AM - 5 Likes	#4
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Great find... He doesn't demo focus assist on live view or tilt screens, the only two omissions I can see. Another thing he fails to mention, although ƒ22 may be diffraction limited sometimes ƒ22 is the best image. in any case. His video fails to point that out. Last edited by normhead; 01-24-2021 at 07:27 AM.

01-24-2021, 07:58 AM	#5
mjp29 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 32 Original Poster	Originally posted by dlhawes I just now posted a new thread in the "beginners' help" section that covers this really well, but it's just a link to a good youtube vid: An Introduction To Macro Photography - YouTube Very informative video! What is the lens I've posted about: 1:1 or 1:2 ?

01-24-2021, 08:59 AM	#6
Ausable Senior Member Join Date: May 2019 Posts: 149	Originally posted by mjp29 Very informative video! What is the lens I've posted about: 1:1 or 1:2 ? It is 1:2. See SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

01-24-2021, 09:07 AM	#7
mjp29 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 32 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ausable It is 1:2. See SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database So, according to his video, "technically speaking," 1:2 is not macro. Or do I have things backwards.

01-24-2021, 09:22 AM	#8
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,977	It is macro, by traditional definitions - which some challenge. It definitely gives you that "larger than live" feel.

01-24-2021, 12:14 PM	#11
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,977	Originally posted by normhead What kind of definition is that? If you refer to 'It definitely gives you that "larger than live" feel', it's none at all. It's a subjective observation, which the word "feel" implies. Not totally unfounded though. It has something to do with the closest clear focusing distance of the eye (considered around 30cm, highly dependent on age), determining the smallest detail your naked eye can resolve, and how this tiny detail appears e.g. on a print at its "usual viewing distance" = diagonal, for a large enough print to clearly view from that distance. It's of course all dependent on the sensor size, but for APS-C and 35mm formats, a shot taken at 2:1 yields the sense of seeing a lot smaller detail. A Pentax-Q needs a lot less magnification to achieve that, a Pentax 6x7 a bit more.

01-24-2021, 01:49 PM - 1 Like	#12
AstroDave Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Flagstaff, Arizona Posts: 1,649	Originally posted by JensE (considered around 30cm, highly dependent on age) And whether you are near-sighted. I am 75 (in three weeks) and quite near-sighted (my distance glasses are around -5 diopters; I need to move up closer to make out the big E on the eye-guy's chart). But, I can readily focus at 10-15 cm for close-up work without glasses. (And will threaten to kill my opthalmologist when I need cataract surgery if he refuses to keep that capability! They want to set you up with new for-distance lenses. I haven't been able to see at a distance without glasses since I was 10 years old, so I am used to things as they are.).

01-24-2021, 03:50 PM	#13
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,977	Originally posted by AstroDave And whether you are near-sighted. I am 75 (in three weeks) and quite near-sighted (my distance glasses are around -5 diopters; I need to move up closer to make out the big E on the eye-guy's chart). But, I can readily focus at 10-15 cm for close-up work without glasses. (And will threaten to kill my opthalmologist when I need cataract surgery if he refuses to keep that capability! They want to set you up with new for-distance lenses. I haven't been able to see at a distance without glasses since I was 10 years old, so I am used to things as they are.). Not unknown in our house either Just checked (some German books, wikipedia): The agreed upon distance, e.g. to calculate magnification of a magnifying glass, seems to be 250mm.

01-24-2021, 04:26 PM	#14
35mmfilmfan Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 4,342	Does it have to be hand-held ? When I am using my Sigma 105mm 'macro' lens for close-up photography (not to open a further can of worms seeking a definition of macro !), I find a monopod with Manfrotto 804RC2 3-way head and ring flash gives results with which I am happy. Not knowing the size of the subject matter or its movement characteristics, it is hard to offer advice - plants, flowers, fungi etc are often easier then insects, spiders, etc, but the ring flash (not an LED ring light - they do not freeze movement as does a flash) can usually freeze motion. As for eyesight, my distance glasses are fine for most uses, but I need to take my reading glasses to be able to use Live View ! Then, of course, I can't see any subjects in the distance clearly.

01-24-2021, 07:18 PM	#15
pentaxus Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central Coast, CA Posts: 1,320	The first macro lens was the Kilfitt Macro Kilar of 1955. It was available in a half life size (1:2) or lifesize (1:1) version. Most macro lenses until the 1990's were half life size lenses ( an exception was the original macro Takumar which was a 1:1). In the late 1970's "macro zoom" lenses were marketed. At best they were quarter life size (1:4). With few exceptions, a lens designed specifically for macro will be either a 1:1 or 1:2 (135mm lens for 67 1:3 is an exception).