Macro lens for insects (Tamron 90 / Sigma 105 / Pentax 100) ?

Marc Sabatella · 05-09-2009, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by mwcfire

I've read through this thread and I am confused. If I want to dabble with Macro photography too, do I buy one of the 90 or 100 or 105mm lens or is a simple Raynox DCR-250 added to one of my existing primes a good alternative?

Yes, it's a good alternative to get started. The longer the lens you attach the Raynox to, the more magnification you get. I have the 150, which doesn't focus quite as close as the 250, and hence doesn't provide quite as much magnification. But it does about 1:2 with my DA70 and 1:1 with my M135/3.5. I suspect the 250 might do 1:1 with the DA70.

Note you will need some sort of adapter ring to use either Raynox with a lens that has a 49mm filter (as most Pentax primes do), since the supplied clip-on adapter only works on 52mm and larger. I recently got a 49-43mm step-down adapter so I could use the Raynox directly, without the somewhat awkward clip-on adapter.

Here's the Raynox 150 on the M135/3.5. This is not a crop:

The 250 would provide even more magnification.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 05-10-2009 at 09:47 AM.

F16 · 05-09-2009, 10:34 PM

mwcfire, there are a lot of different ways to get close, one quick and easy way to start that is also cheap is buying a close up lens set that just threads onto the end of any lens like a filter. Optically there are better options, but they are cheap & take up almost no extra space in your camera bag. And with the right combination, even the cheaper ones can do well. They're often sold in a set of +1, +2, & +4 (1=1 meter focus distance at infinity, 2= 1/2 meter, 4=1/4 meter, about 10"). You can also stack them to get even closer. Canon and Nikon sell some that are more expensive and optically better as they use 2 elements instead of 1. But you can go on Ebay and buy a set for probably $15 shipped. A good combination would be something like a prime or good zoom in the 85-135mm range combined with a +4 close-up lens, with long telephotos you may not be able to get sharp photos. If you have a telephoto zoom with 58mm or 62mm filters, you can buy them in that size and then get a couple of stepping rings to allow them to also fit smaller lens threads.

As I said, though they aren't the best option optically (a true macro lens is best), they are still capable of very good results. Another advantage is that you don't have the problems of light loss like you do with most other options, so you may have easier focusing and faster shutter speeds available.

P.S. - just saw the post by Marc, the Raynox adapters are also close-up lenses, they are multiple element lenses rather than single element so they are sharper than your typical single element close-up lens. The 250 might magnify more than some would need or want, just depends how close you want to get. A set of close-up lenses is still a good way to start and costs very little.

mickeyobe · 05-09-2009, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by res3567

Were can I get a reversing ring and will it work on my 50f2 and my Super Tak 55f1.8?

Try Camera Hunter. www,camerahunter.com

He has an amazing selection of reversing and adaptor and step up and step down rings as well as many other accessories.
He will personally answer your questions,
His prices are reasonable.
His shipping charges are very fair.

Mickey

Andi Lo · 05-09-2009, 11:26 PM

Another way to start, although slightly more cumbersome and won't work with lenses without aperture rings (DA lenses) is extension tubes, available for cheep (10$ shipped worldwide) at dealextreme

DealExtreme: $9.77 Macro Extension Tube/Ring for Pentax SLR/DSLR Cameras

I've used it a bit with my SMC tak 50 with great results =) Seems like these non electrical tubes are great to use with takumars since they can go from wide open to desired aperture in one switch, unlike Pentax lenses from K to FA generation which require you to count clicks if used with these tubes.

Either way (from what I know) a dedicated macro seems to be the least cumbersome option (minus the fact that you're carrying one more lens) since all the cheap options have their caveats...

Igilligan · 05-10-2009, 01:22 AM

Here are some more Raynox 250 shots... shot with the 85mm Jupiter 9... They are crops.

And a tight crop with a FA 50 + raynox

With a zoom like the DA 50 - 200 they are even more usable...

Skyntara · 05-10-2009, 04:08 AM

Just a quick query on the reversing option.

I have a Vivitar 28mm 2.8 fully manual lens.

Would I be best off with a 49mm reverse > kmount adapter for mounting straight to the body.

OR

Should I go for a reverse ring the lets me mount the 28mm onto one of my other lenses?

Thanks in advance.

mwcfire · 05-10-2009, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Igilligan

With a zoom like the DA 50 - 200 they are even more usable...

Now that is an interesting idea! Take my 50-200 that is collecting dust anyways and just turn it into a permanent macro setup.

Great shots Igillian!

newarts · 05-10-2009, 07:24 AM

I do not have a Raynox clip-on lens, but I've used screw-on, reverse lens, reverse lens in front, bellows, true macro lens, etc so have a little background.

It seems to me the Raynox clip-on would be the best reasonably priced alternative to start with; it is even easier than screwing on a good achromatic close-up lens.

Ease of use may be important to you for ad-hoc macro shots- it is important to me. With the Raynox if you can't get close enough, just clip it on. Admittedly screwing something on is not much more difficult, but takes longer. Extension tubes and reversing rings are by far the least costly & a big pain in the neck.

I don't know how the Raynox' 37mm diameter might affect vignetting, but I doubt that's much of a problem when it is used on long lenses. I hope someone with direct experience will comment on this.

The Raynox 150 (4.8 diopter) will *quickly* turn a 50-200mm lens into a variable macro lens with a magnification range of at least 1:4 - 1:1.

I'm pretty happy with a screw-on Nikon 4T achromat - it is 3.8 diopters IIRC.

Iowa Dave

Minimum_magnification = focal_length_meters x diopters

res3567 · 05-10-2009, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Yes, it's a good alternative to get started. the longer the long you attach the Raynox to, the more magnification you get. I have the 150, which doesn't focus quite as close as the 250, and hence doesn't provide quite as much magnification. But it does about 1:2 with my DA70 and 1:1 with my M135/3.5. I suspect the 250 might do 1:1 with the DA70.

Note you will need some sort of adapter ring to use either Raynox with a lens that has a 49mm filter (as most Pentax primes do), since the supplied clip-on adapter only works on 52mm and larger. I recently got a 49-43mm step-down adapter so I could use the Raynox directly, without the somewhat awkward clip-on adapter.

Here's the Raynox 150 on the M135/3.5. This is not a crop:

The 250 would provide even more magnification.

In another thread you another forum member talked about the difference in getting the 49-52 adapter ring (which is what I recieved in the mail yesterday) and your 49-43. You are saying you way is a good way because it allows you to screw on the lens rather than clip it on?

And how is it working for you?

Marc Sabatella · 05-10-2009, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by newarts

Ease of use may be important to you for ad-hoc macro shots- it is important to me. With the Raynox if you can't get close enough, just clip it on. Admittedly screwing something on is not much more difficult, but takes longer.

I find the Raynox clip on adapter awkward to use - you have to be careful in centering. And it makes the thing take up way more space in the bag than is necessary. At least you don't need to buy anything extra, so that' one point in favor of the clip-on. But the extra $10 it cost me to get the stepping ring to screw it on directly was *definitely* worth it.

Oh, I found a pretty convenient storage case for it - the little zipper pouch that came with one of my Sandisk SD cards.

Quote:

I don't know how the Raynox' 37mm diameter might affect vignetting

It's 43mm, not 37mm. At least, that's the filter size. It doesn't vignette that I've seen with any lens I've used, but my lenses are mostly 49mm and 52mm threads, and I've never tried it with anything under 50mm in focal length. It does fine with the DA50-200 at 200mm, but I understand it does vignette with the DA55-300. I imagine it might also vignette with the DA18-250 or any of the larger aperture or larger range zooms like the DA*50-135, DA*16-50, or DA17-70.

Quote:

I'm pretty happy with a screw-on Nikon 4T achromat - it is 3.8 diopters IIRC.

I might have gone that way too if it had been easier to find when I was looking, but the Raynox options were the only ones easily available and cheap.

One other option I'm curious about, though - what about the screw-on adapter that comes with the cheap vivitar/phoenix/whatever 100mm macro? I'm guessing it isn't as strong as the Raynox 150, but could be even more convenient.

Marc Sabatella · 05-10-2009, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by res3567

In another thread you another forum member talked about the difference in getting the 49-52 adapter ring (which is what I recieved in the mail yesterday) and your 49-43. You are saying you way is a good way because it allows you to screw on the lens rather than clip it on?

And how is it working for you?

I like the 49-43 step-down ring because that way I don't need the clip on adapter at all. The adapter is like twice the size of the lens itself!

I posted these already to dpreview, but here they are again. First, the DA70 with Raynox attached using the clip-on adapter and a 49-52mm step-up ring:

Now, same thing but attachedvia the 49-43mm step-down ring, no clip-on adapter:

I'm loving it. Spring is the time I'm always most interested in macro photography, although we had a very unusual series of late winter snowstorms that has effectively prevented many of the spring-blossoming plants from doing their thing this year. Really a drag, as the crabapples, cherries, and lilacs this time of year are usually stunning. But still, spring is spring - lots of new life to photograph even if it's just a yellowjacket on a dandelion.

res3567 · 05-10-2009, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I like the 49-43 step-down ring because that way I don't need the clip on adapter at all. The adapter is like twice the size of the lens itself!

I posted these already to dpreview, but here they are again. First, the DA70 with Raynox attached using the clip-on adapter and a 49-52mm step-up ring:

Now, same thing but attachedvia the 49-43mm step-down ring, no clip-on adapter:

I'm loving it. Spring is the time I'm always most interested in macro photography, although we had a very unusual series of late winter snowstorms that has effectively prevented many of the spring-blossoming plants from doing their thing this year. Really a drag, as the crabapples, cherries, and lilacs this time of year are usually stunning. But still, spring is spring - lots of new life to photograph even if it's just a yellowjacket on a dandelion.

Thanks Marc!

You must have been reading my mind.

I was going to ask for pics, but while I was typing wasn't sure if you already had em or wanted to.

Now I can do what you and SOLDbear talked about on another thread, or order the 43-49 adapter. or is it 49-43?

res3567 · 05-10-2009, 10:25 AM

Ok Marc.

Just orderd the 49-43 ring from Heavy Hitters with the link provided by you.

The Raynox will be ordered in two weeks cause I just dropped $1400 for repairs for my pickup and bought that K100DS at a good deal.

That being said, your review on HEAVY Hitters?

I never used them before.

Marc Sabatella · 05-10-2009, 10:25 AM

The idea of removing glass from filters and gluing them together sounds like far too much work for me. A 49-43 step-down for the primes, and either a 52-43 step-down to use *instead* of the 49-43 for the zooms, or else - and here's what I just added the other day - a 52-49 step-down *in addition to* the 49-43.

As for the labeling, I have no idea if there are real standards for this. I believe most call it a "step-down" if it allows you to use a filter *smaller* than the diameter of your lens, and that's basically what we want here. Hopefully, the description from the seller will make it clear (eg, "this adapter lets you use a 43mm filter on your 49mm diameter lens").

EDIT - and I see you went ahead and ordered it. Should be the right one if you followed my link. I had never heard of the company before (actually heavystar, not heavy hitters), but they were very straightforward to deal with - somewhat more "personal" than the typical online store, actually, in the confirmation emails I received.

res3567 · 05-10-2009, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

The idea of removing glass from filters and gluing them together sounds like far too much work for me. A 49-43 step-down for the primes, and either a 52-43 step-down to use *instead* of the 49-43 for the zooms, or else - and here's what I just added the other day - a 52-49 step-down *in addition to* the 49-43.

As for the labeling, I have no idea if there are real standards for this. I believe most call it a "step-down" if it allows you to use a filter *smaller* than the diameter of your lens, and that's basically what we want here. Hopefully, the description from the seller will make it clear (eg, "this adapter lets you use a 43mm filter on your 49mm diameter lens").

Ok! I have a 75-200mm zoom with 52mm threads.

Your second idea will be ordered next; 52-49mm step down ring!

I'll do it after I order the Raynox or maybe before if I aint all the way broke.

Yea removing glass from my old filters seems to be a bit if a chore.

And I don't want to be lazy and keep the glass on and glue the filters.

05-09-2009, 10:34 PM	#17
F16 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: U.S. Posts: 104	mwcfire, there are a lot of different ways to get close, one quick and easy way to start that is also cheap is buying a close up lens set that just threads onto the end of any lens like a filter. Optically there are better options, but they are cheap & take up almost no extra space in your camera bag. And with the right combination, even the cheaper ones can do well. They're often sold in a set of +1, +2, & +4 (1=1 meter focus distance at infinity, 2= 1/2 meter, 4=1/4 meter, about 10"). You can also stack them to get even closer. Canon and Nikon sell some that are more expensive and optically better as they use 2 elements instead of 1. But you can go on Ebay and buy a set for probably $15 shipped. A good combination would be something like a prime or good zoom in the 85-135mm range combined with a +4 close-up lens, with long telephotos you may not be able to get sharp photos. If you have a telephoto zoom with 58mm or 62mm filters, you can buy them in that size and then get a couple of stepping rings to allow them to also fit smaller lens threads. As I said, though they aren't the best option optically (a true macro lens is best), they are still capable of very good results. Another advantage is that you don't have the problems of light loss like you do with most other options, so you may have easier focusing and faster shutter speeds available. P.S. - just saw the post by Marc, the Raynox adapters are also close-up lenses, they are multiple element lenses rather than single element so they are sharper than your typical single element close-up lens. The 250 might magnify more than some would need or want, just depends how close you want to get. A set of close-up lenses is still a good way to start and costs very little. Last edited by F16; 05-09-2009 at 10:43 PM.

05-10-2009, 07:24 AM	#23
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	I do not have a Raynox clip-on lens, but I've used screw-on, reverse lens, reverse lens in front, bellows, true macro lens, etc so have a little background. It seems to me the Raynox clip-on would be the best reasonably priced alternative to start with; it is even easier than screwing on a good achromatic close-up lens. Ease of use may be important to you for ad-hoc macro shots- it is important to me. With the Raynox if you can't get close enough, just clip it on. Admittedly screwing something on is not much more difficult, but takes longer. Extension tubes and reversing rings are by far the least costly & a big pain in the neck. I don't know how the Raynox' 37mm diameter might affect vignetting, but I doubt that's much of a problem when it is used on long lenses. I hope someone with direct experience will comment on this. The Raynox 150 (4.8 diopter) will quickly turn a 50-200mm lens into a variable macro lens with a magnification range of at least 1:4 - 1:1. I'm pretty happy with a screw-on Nikon 4T achromat - it is 3.8 diopters IIRC. Iowa Dave Minimum_magnification = focal_length_meters x diopters Last edited by newarts; 05-10-2009 at 08:40 AM.

05-10-2009, 10:25 AM	#28
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Ok Marc. Just orderd the 49-43 ring from Heavy Hitters with the link provided by you. The Raynox will be ordered in two weeks cause I just dropped $1400 for repairs for my pickup and bought that K100DS at a good deal. That being said, your review on HEAVY Hitters? I never used them before. Last edited by res3567; 05-10-2009 at 11:35 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 100 WR macro vs Sigma 105 macro	GSk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-22-2010 04:23 PM
Pentax 100 vs Sigma 105 Macro	WMBP	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	02-22-2010 08:44 PM
New member- Pentax 100 vs Sigma 105 Macro Question	stanleyk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-04-2009 05:05 PM

05-09-2009, 10:33 PM	#16
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by mwcfire I've read through this thread and I am confused. If I want to dabble with Macro photography too, do I buy one of the 90 or 100 or 105mm lens or is a simple Raynox DCR-250 added to one of my existing primes a good alternative? Yes, it's a good alternative to get started. The longer the lens you attach the Raynox to, the more magnification you get. I have the 150, which doesn't focus quite as close as the 250, and hence doesn't provide quite as much magnification. But it does about 1:2 with my DA70 and 1:1 with my M135/3.5. I suspect the 250 might do 1:1 with the DA70. Note you will need some sort of adapter ring to use either Raynox with a lens that has a 49mm filter (as most Pentax primes do), since the supplied clip-on adapter only works on 52mm and larger. I recently got a 49-43mm step-down adapter so I could use the Raynox directly, without the somewhat awkward clip-on adapter. Here's the Raynox 150 on the M135/3.5. This is not a crop: The 250 would provide even more magnification. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 05-10-2009 at 09:47 AM.

05-09-2009, 11:21 PM	#18
mickeyobe Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,759	Originally posted by res3567 Were can I get a reversing ring and will it work on my 50f2 and my Super Tak 55f1.8? Try Camera Hunter. www,camerahunter.com He has an amazing selection of reversing and adaptor and step up and step down rings as well as many other accessories. He will personally answer your questions, His prices are reasonable. His shipping charges are very fair. Mickey

05-09-2009, 11:26 PM	#19
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Another way to start, although slightly more cumbersome and won't work with lenses without aperture rings (DA lenses) is extension tubes, available for cheep (10$ shipped worldwide) at dealextreme DealExtreme: $9.77 Macro Extension Tube/Ring for Pentax SLR/DSLR Cameras I've used it a bit with my SMC tak 50 with great results =) Seems like these non electrical tubes are great to use with takumars since they can go from wide open to desired aperture in one switch, unlike Pentax lenses from K to FA generation which require you to count clicks if used with these tubes. Either way (from what I know) a dedicated macro seems to be the least cumbersome option (minus the fact that you're carrying one more lens) since all the cheap options have their caveats...

05-10-2009, 01:22 AM	#20
Igilligan Guest	Here are some more Raynox 250 shots... shot with the 85mm Jupiter 9... They are crops. And a tight crop with a FA 50 + raynox With a zoom like the DA 50 - 200 they are even more usable...

05-10-2009, 04:08 AM	#21
Skyntara Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney Posts: 157	Just a quick query on the reversing option. I have a Vivitar 28mm 2.8 fully manual lens. Would I be best off with a 49mm reverse > kmount adapter for mounting straight to the body. OR Should I go for a reverse ring the lets me mount the 28mm onto one of my other lenses? Thanks in advance.

05-10-2009, 05:40 AM	#22
mwcfire Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: OKC Photos: Gallery Posts: 186	Originally posted by Igilligan With a zoom like the DA 50 - 200 they are even more usable... Now that is an interesting idea! Take my 50-200 that is collecting dust anyways and just turn it into a permanent macro setup. Great shots Igillian!

05-10-2009, 09:50 AM	#24
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Yes, it's a good alternative to get started. the longer the long you attach the Raynox to, the more magnification you get. I have the 150, which doesn't focus quite as close as the 250, and hence doesn't provide quite as much magnification. But it does about 1:2 with my DA70 and 1:1 with my M135/3.5. I suspect the 250 might do 1:1 with the DA70. Note you will need some sort of adapter ring to use either Raynox with a lens that has a 49mm filter (as most Pentax primes do), since the supplied clip-on adapter only works on 52mm and larger. I recently got a 49-43mm step-down adapter so I could use the Raynox directly, without the somewhat awkward clip-on adapter. Here's the Raynox 150 on the M135/3.5. This is not a crop: The 250 would provide even more magnification. In another thread you another forum member talked about the difference in getting the 49-52 adapter ring (which is what I recieved in the mail yesterday) and your 49-43. You are saying you way is a good way because it allows you to screw on the lens rather than clip it on? And how is it working for you?

05-10-2009, 09:58 AM	#25
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by newarts Ease of use may be important to you for ad-hoc macro shots- it is important to me. With the Raynox if you can't get close enough, just clip it on. Admittedly screwing something on is not much more difficult, but takes longer. I find the Raynox clip on adapter awkward to use - you have to be careful in centering. And it makes the thing take up way more space in the bag than is necessary. At least you don't need to buy anything extra, so that' one point in favor of the clip-on. But the extra $10 it cost me to get the stepping ring to screw it on directly was definitely worth it. Oh, I found a pretty convenient storage case for it - the little zipper pouch that came with one of my Sandisk SD cards. Quote: I don't know how the Raynox' 37mm diameter might affect vignetting It's 43mm, not 37mm. At least, that's the filter size. It doesn't vignette that I've seen with any lens I've used, but my lenses are mostly 49mm and 52mm threads, and I've never tried it with anything under 50mm in focal length. It does fine with the DA50-200 at 200mm, but I understand it does vignette with the DA55-300. I imagine it might also vignette with the DA18-250 or any of the larger aperture or larger range zooms like the DA50-135, DA16-50, or DA17-70. Quote: I'm pretty happy with a screw-on Nikon 4T achromat - it is 3.8 diopters IIRC. I might have gone that way too if it had been easier to find when I was looking, but the Raynox options were the only ones easily available and cheap. One other option I'm curious about, though - what about the screw-on adapter that comes with the cheap vivitar/phoenix/whatever 100mm macro? I'm guessing it isn't as strong as the Raynox 150, but could be even more convenient.

05-10-2009, 10:06 AM	#26
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by res3567 In another thread you another forum member talked about the difference in getting the 49-52 adapter ring (which is what I recieved in the mail yesterday) and your 49-43. You are saying you way is a good way because it allows you to screw on the lens rather than clip it on? And how is it working for you? I like the 49-43 step-down ring because that way I don't need the clip on adapter at all. The adapter is like twice the size of the lens itself! I posted these already to dpreview, but here they are again. First, the DA70 with Raynox attached using the clip-on adapter and a 49-52mm step-up ring: Now, same thing but attachedvia the 49-43mm step-down ring, no clip-on adapter: I'm loving it. Spring is the time I'm always most interested in macro photography, although we had a very unusual series of late winter snowstorms that has effectively prevented many of the spring-blossoming plants from doing their thing this year. Really a drag, as the crabapples, cherries, and lilacs this time of year are usually stunning. But still, spring is spring - lots of new life to photograph even if it's just a yellowjacket on a dandelion.

05-10-2009, 10:09 AM	#27
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I like the 49-43 step-down ring because that way I don't need the clip on adapter at all. The adapter is like twice the size of the lens itself! I posted these already to dpreview, but here they are again. First, the DA70 with Raynox attached using the clip-on adapter and a 49-52mm step-up ring: Now, same thing but attachedvia the 49-43mm step-down ring, no clip-on adapter: I'm loving it. Spring is the time I'm always most interested in macro photography, although we had a very unusual series of late winter snowstorms that has effectively prevented many of the spring-blossoming plants from doing their thing this year. Really a drag, as the crabapples, cherries, and lilacs this time of year are usually stunning. But still, spring is spring - lots of new life to photograph even if it's just a yellowjacket on a dandelion. Thanks Marc! You must have been reading my mind. I was going to ask for pics, but while I was typing wasn't sure if you already had em or wanted to. Now I can do what you and SOLDbear talked about on another thread, or order the 43-49 adapter. or is it 49-43?

05-10-2009, 10:25 AM	#29
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	The idea of removing glass from filters and gluing them together sounds like far too much work for me. A 49-43 step-down for the primes, and either a 52-43 step-down to use instead of the 49-43 for the zooms, or else - and here's what I just added the other day - a 52-49 step-down in addition to the 49-43. As for the labeling, I have no idea if there are real standards for this. I believe most call it a "step-down" if it allows you to use a filter smaller than the diameter of your lens, and that's basically what we want here. Hopefully, the description from the seller will make it clear (eg, "this adapter lets you use a 43mm filter on your 49mm diameter lens"). EDIT - and I see you went ahead and ordered it. Should be the right one if you followed my link. I had never heard of the company before (actually heavystar, not heavy hitters), but they were very straightforward to deal with - somewhat more "personal" than the typical online store, actually, in the confirmation emails I received.

05-10-2009, 10:31 AM	#30
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella The idea of removing glass from filters and gluing them together sounds like far too much work for me. A 49-43 step-down for the primes, and either a 52-43 step-down to use instead of the 49-43 for the zooms, or else - and here's what I just added the other day - a 52-49 step-down in addition to the 49-43. As for the labeling, I have no idea if there are real standards for this. I believe most call it a "step-down" if it allows you to use a filter smaller than the diameter of your lens, and that's basically what we want here. Hopefully, the description from the seller will make it clear (eg, "this adapter lets you use a 43mm filter on your 49mm diameter lens"). Ok! I have a 75-200mm zoom with 52mm threads. Your second idea will be ordered next; 52-49mm step down ring! I'll do it after I order the Raynox or maybe before if I aint all the way broke. Yea removing glass from my old filters seems to be a bit if a chore. And I don't want to be lazy and keep the glass on and glue the filters.