Macro lens question

jb1962 · 10-06-2009, 07:30 AM

Hi All,

New to the forum, and somewhat new to photography. I have a K200D, which I like very much, and two zoom lenses (DA 18-55, and DA 50-200). Given my inexperience both of these are fine for me, but I am becoming a bit interested in a macro lens. If I could buy one, what would be a good choice? Since I am on a limted budget, I will most likely look for a used lens in top condition, but I still want to be able to get the most lens for my money.

Thanks in advance for any advice.
John

Sew-Classic · 10-06-2009, 07:33 AM

Limited Budget?? How about one of the Raynox conversion lenses??

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

kristoffon · 10-06-2009, 08:10 AM

The Vivitar macro lenses are outstanding quality, easily available too. Look for the 100-105mm, f/2.8 models. I have one and am very happy.

Rocnal · 10-06-2009, 10:21 AM

Hi,
I was looking for the same thing last year. If you're on a really tight budget, you can get an old K or M 50mm f/4 for ~100 bucks. They only have 1:2 magnification, and you have to get pretty close to the subject, but the picture quality should be really good. (I actually got a screw mount SMC Takumar, which are a little more, and need an adapter, but I'm now collecting a set of Takumars). I find it to be great for flowers, textures, etc.
Brian

SOldBear · 10-06-2009, 11:20 AM

There is one currently listed in this forum: Sigma 50mm Macro F/2.8

It can also be used as a portrait lens.

netuser · 10-06-2009, 12:11 PM

With available money get Pentax DFA 100mm/2, great performer for macro and also portrait lens.

With a small budget get an inversor ring to the kit lens and you will get more then 1:1 macro images.

ilya80 · 10-06-2009, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by netuser

With available money get Pentax DFA 100mm/2, great performer for macro and also portrait lens.

With a small budget get an inversor ring to the kit lens and you will get more then 1:1 macro images.

Quick correction, there is no DFA 100mm 1:2, its1:2.8. There is a Zeiss Makro-Planar ( i think it is Makro-Planar ) 100mm 1:2 but its a bit out of OP's league

And as to macro lens I`d try to hunt down either Bokina 90mm or Vivitar 105 2.8 that has been already mentioned here.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 10-06-2009, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by netuser

With available money get Pentax DFA 100mm/2, great performer for macro and also portrait lens.

With a small budget get an inversor ring to the kit lens and you will get more then 1:1 macro images.

And how do you suggest that he will set the apperture on a DA kit zoom without apperture ring when it's been reverersed?

Sheap options:

1. Close up filter set perhaps covering +1, +2, +4. Will give you good working distance with the DA50-200 with little light loss and you have auto exposure and AF. Won't get you to 1:1, but a fair bit. Raynox adapter is sort of a extreme form of close up filter.

2. Get a sheap manual 50mm lens (with apperture ring) with something between f1.4 to f2.0 minima apperture. Doesn't even have to be K mount. Then get a sheap lens reverse ring with the right filter diameter. A 28mm or 35mm manual lens is also fine. Gives easilly 1:1 or even a bit more. As good optical quality as the reversed lens. But short DOF. Lens from 20USD to 200USD, reverse ring maybe 10-20USD.

3. An extension tube set without A contacts cost almost nothing. For a set with A contacts you will pay around 100-150USD. Make sure they have mechanical apperture transfer. Especially if you plan to use it with the DA zooms you have (no apperture rings). But it is even better to combine it with a fast 50mm manual lens. Then you can easilly get 1:1 or even a bit beyond with the combined tube set.

4. Get a bellows instead of tubes. You still need a lens to put on it. One with apperture ring. Tubes are easier to carry with you, but bellows are more versatile to work with. Once you have bellows and lens mounted you don't need to shift the number of tubes, you just adjust the bellows expansion. There are plenty of old bellows out for sale. I gave only about 20USD for the sheapest one I have.

5. Get both 2 and 3 and you can reverse a sheap manual 28, 35, or 50mm lens on top of the tubes. This will get you beyond 1:1. Depending on lens and tube distance maybe 5:1 or so. Works with the bellows also, which may bring you close to 10:1 with a 28mm reversed on fully extended tubes.

6. Get a fast 50mm as in 2 and a Vivitar/Kenko macro converter. This converter sits between camera and lens. For example a Pentax 50mm f1.7 lens will give you a 100mm f3.4 1:1 macro tele. The optical quality is quite good, if you use a good prime. This is the sheapest way to get something that resambles a dedicated macro lens. A macro converter with A contacts cost something like 100-150USD and one without A contacts (you will have to go manual and use the green button) costs something like 50-75USD. If you anyway get a 50mm lens without the A contacts (such as a the SMC Pentax-M 50/1.7) you don't need the A contacts anyway. Sheapest combo would be a non Pentax 50mm (maybe a Chinon or Ricoh K mount) that you may get for 20-30SUD, in total ~100USD for converter and 50mm lens. You can also use the converter with a tele lens to get longer reach. A 100mm f2.8 lens would give you a 200mm f5.6 1:1 macro tele. A nice thing with this macro converter is that it focus to infinity. There are also other macro converters, such as the Panagor or Sigma, which does not focus to infinity. All of them are out of production so you must look for a used one, but it is worth it. Remember that a fast 50 will also give you a good portrait lens with thin DOF on your DSLR, so you get two important lenses for this price to complement your zoom lenses.

7. Finally you can get a dedicated macro lens. If you are into flowers, something short like the DA35ltd macro or DFA50/2.8 macro are good, if you are into bugs you often want more distance such as the DFA100/2.8 macro. If you are on a budget, look for used manual focus alternatives. The various manual focus K or m42 mount 50/4 and 100/4 macro lenses does not cost that much, perhaps 150-200USD (unless they are mint collector copies in box). I can also recommend the Tamron adaptall 2 SP 90mm f2.5 1:2 macro, which you can get for 75-100USD without adaptall mount. A K mount is then very sheap, while a KA-mount (which give you automatic exposure) may cost 75-100USD used. The dedicated 2x converter gives you 1:1 macro for maybe 50-75USD (gives you a 180mm f2.5 1:1 macro). You can also combine it with a tube to get something like a 90mm f3.75 1:1 macro. All these alternatives are still sheap compared to a new macro lens.

netuser · 10-06-2009, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by ilya80

Quick correction, there is no DFA 100mm 1:2, its1:2.8. ..........

True, I was just typing fast

jb1962 · 10-06-2009, 07:17 PM

Hi All,

I very much appreciate all of the suggestions and responses. I will take some time and research each each of these options.Since I am inexperienced, my first inclination is to seek out a well cared for, used, dedicated macro lens. However, given all of the responses, it seems like this is a good time to learn a thing or two!

Just an fyi, my wife is a florist, and I want to be able to photograph her work, so that is why I posted my original question.

Will report back.

John

Nick Siebers · 10-06-2009, 07:52 PM

As Rocnal said, I would consider a Pentax-M 50mm f/4 macro lens. These can be had for about $100 and give great images. The downsides are: manual focus, stop-down metering, and limited to filling the frame with a object twice the size of the sensor (aka 1:2 magnification). Some macro lenses will allow you to get even closer (1:1) but for flowers you will probably not need more.

As a step up, the Pentax-FA 50mm f/2.8 macro has auto-focus and communicates aperture with the camera electronically. It will do 1:1, and can probably be found for about $300. It is considered one of the sharpest lenses Pentax has ever made.

newarts · 10-07-2009, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by jb1962

Hi All,

New to the forum, and somewhat new to photography. I have a K200D, which I like very much, and two zoom lenses (DA 18-55, and DA 50-200). Given my inexperience both of these are fine for me, but I am becoming a bit interested in a macro lens. If I could buy one, what would be a good choice? Since I am on a limted budget, I will most likely look for a used lens in top condition, but I still want to be able to get the most lens for my money.

Thanks in advance for any advice.
John

I think the Raynox DCR 150 would be a useful addition for you as a adjunct to your DA 50-200. The image quality will be excellent, and it will take little space in your kit.

As is, the DA50-200 can magnify up to 1:5 according to the specs. This puts the front of the lens about 9.5 inches away from the subject (working distance).

When you add the Raynox DCR 150 to the DA50-200, the magnification range will extend from less than 1:5 to greater than 2:1 with a working distance of about 8".

This will be a useful range for you and will take advantage of your existing lens' features for a cost of about $50USD.

Dave in Iowa

PS I have a couple good macro lenses as well as the Raynox DCR 150 so have direct experience. I'd go for the Raynox first, then a long macro lens if you discover you need more working distance or better image quality at the edges.

The Raynox image quality at the edges isn't good but that usually doesn't matter (look at some of the Raynox images posted here and you'll see that the edges aren't usually important to the image - the edges of a macro photograph will almost always be way out of focus anyway due to the small depth of field of macro photography and the 3D nature of real subjects.)

audiobomber · 10-07-2009, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by jb1962

Hi All,
Just an fyi, my wife is a florist, and I want to be able to photograph her work, so that is why I posted my original question.

John

Macro is great fun, but have you tried flower photography with your present lenses? A flower head doesn't need much magnification. Either kit lens should be able to fill the frame, especially with cropping for smaller flowers.

Marc Sabatella · 10-07-2009, 02:59 PM

I agree; unless you're wanting extreme closeups of the centers of inidivudal flowers, much floral photography doesn't really require great magnification. The 18-55 does 1:3 and that's often enough. But a Raynox 150 on the 50-200 gives you all the way from from there to 1;1 and beyond; this is going to be the cheapest / most effective way to get there should it become necessary.

ezechiel · 10-08-2009, 06:39 AM

I read a thread one some forum and it talks about the following cheap setup.

- First lens mounted normally.
- Find a cheap macro coupler ring
- Reverse mount another lens in front of the first lens.

How to calculate magnification?

1st lens focal lenght / 2nd lens focal lenght.

I bought a sigma 24mm superwide for this reason, but still have to get the coupler ring..
This will give me a theoretical (I didn't tested it yet ^^ ) magnification of 8.3:1
for 20$... (in combination with the 50-200 at 200mm)

For the price, it's worth trying.

10-06-2009, 07:30 AM	#1
jb1962 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: New jersey Posts: 3	Macro lens question Hi All, New to the forum, and somewhat new to photography. I have a K200D, which I like very much, and two zoom lenses (DA 18-55, and DA 50-200). Given my inexperience both of these are fine for me, but I am becoming a bit interested in a macro lens. If I could buy one, what would be a good choice? Since I am on a limted budget, I will most likely look for a used lens in top condition, but I still want to be able to get the most lens for my money. Thanks in advance for any advice. John

10-06-2009, 08:10 AM	#3
kristoffon Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Brazil Posts: 532	The Vivitar macro lenses are outstanding quality, easily available too. Look for the 100-105mm, f/2.8 models. I have one and am very happy. Last edited by kristoffon; 10-06-2009 at 08:16 AM.

10-06-2009, 02:53 PM	#8
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by netuser With available money get Pentax DFA 100mm/2, great performer for macro and also portrait lens. With a small budget get an inversor ring to the kit lens and you will get more then 1:1 macro images. And how do you suggest that he will set the apperture on a DA kit zoom without apperture ring when it's been reverersed? Sheap options: 1. Close up filter set perhaps covering +1, +2, +4. Will give you good working distance with the DA50-200 with little light loss and you have auto exposure and AF. Won't get you to 1:1, but a fair bit. Raynox adapter is sort of a extreme form of close up filter. 2. Get a sheap manual 50mm lens (with apperture ring) with something between f1.4 to f2.0 minima apperture. Doesn't even have to be K mount. Then get a sheap lens reverse ring with the right filter diameter. A 28mm or 35mm manual lens is also fine. Gives easilly 1:1 or even a bit more. As good optical quality as the reversed lens. But short DOF. Lens from 20USD to 200USD, reverse ring maybe 10-20USD. 3. An extension tube set without A contacts cost almost nothing. For a set with A contacts you will pay around 100-150USD. Make sure they have mechanical apperture transfer. Especially if you plan to use it with the DA zooms you have (no apperture rings). But it is even better to combine it with a fast 50mm manual lens. Then you can easilly get 1:1 or even a bit beyond with the combined tube set. 4. Get a bellows instead of tubes. You still need a lens to put on it. One with apperture ring. Tubes are easier to carry with you, but bellows are more versatile to work with. Once you have bellows and lens mounted you don't need to shift the number of tubes, you just adjust the bellows expansion. There are plenty of old bellows out for sale. I gave only about 20USD for the sheapest one I have. 5. Get both 2 and 3 and you can reverse a sheap manual 28, 35, or 50mm lens on top of the tubes. This will get you beyond 1:1. Depending on lens and tube distance maybe 5:1 or so. Works with the bellows also, which may bring you close to 10:1 with a 28mm reversed on fully extended tubes. 6. Get a fast 50mm as in 2 and a Vivitar/Kenko macro converter. This converter sits between camera and lens. For example a Pentax 50mm f1.7 lens will give you a 100mm f3.4 1:1 macro tele. The optical quality is quite good, if you use a good prime. This is the sheapest way to get something that resambles a dedicated macro lens. A macro converter with A contacts cost something like 100-150USD and one without A contacts (you will have to go manual and use the green button) costs something like 50-75USD. If you anyway get a 50mm lens without the A contacts (such as a the SMC Pentax-M 50/1.7) you don't need the A contacts anyway. Sheapest combo would be a non Pentax 50mm (maybe a Chinon or Ricoh K mount) that you may get for 20-30SUD, in total ~100USD for converter and 50mm lens. You can also use the converter with a tele lens to get longer reach. A 100mm f2.8 lens would give you a 200mm f5.6 1:1 macro tele. A nice thing with this macro converter is that it focus to infinity. There are also other macro converters, such as the Panagor or Sigma, which does not focus to infinity. All of them are out of production so you must look for a used one, but it is worth it. Remember that a fast 50 will also give you a good portrait lens with thin DOF on your DSLR, so you get two important lenses for this price to complement your zoom lenses. 7. Finally you can get a dedicated macro lens. If you are into flowers, something short like the DA35ltd macro or DFA50/2.8 macro are good, if you are into bugs you often want more distance such as the DFA100/2.8 macro. If you are on a budget, look for used manual focus alternatives. The various manual focus K or m42 mount 50/4 and 100/4 macro lenses does not cost that much, perhaps 150-200USD (unless they are mint collector copies in box). I can also recommend the Tamron adaptall 2 SP 90mm f2.5 1:2 macro, which you can get for 75-100USD without adaptall mount. A K mount is then very sheap, while a KA-mount (which give you automatic exposure) may cost 75-100USD used. The dedicated 2x converter gives you 1:1 macro for maybe 50-75USD (gives you a 180mm f2.5 1:1 macro). You can also combine it with a tube to get something like a 90mm f3.75 1:1 macro. All these alternatives are still sheap compared to a new macro lens. Last edited by Douglas_of_Sweden; 10-06-2009 at 02:54 PM. Reason: complement info

10-07-2009, 07:09 AM	#12
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by jb1962 Hi All, New to the forum, and somewhat new to photography. I have a K200D, which I like very much, and two zoom lenses (DA 18-55, and DA 50-200). Given my inexperience both of these are fine for me, but I am becoming a bit interested in a macro lens. If I could buy one, what would be a good choice? Since I am on a limted budget, I will most likely look for a used lens in top condition, but I still want to be able to get the most lens for my money. Thanks in advance for any advice. John I think the Raynox DCR 150 would be a useful addition for you as a adjunct to your DA 50-200. The image quality will be excellent, and it will take little space in your kit. As is, the DA50-200 can magnify up to 1:5 according to the specs. This puts the front of the lens about 9.5 inches away from the subject (working distance). When you add the Raynox DCR 150 to the DA50-200, the magnification range will extend from less than 1:5 to greater than 2:1 with a working distance of about 8". This will be a useful range for you and will take advantage of your existing lens' features for a cost of about $50USD. Dave in Iowa PS I have a couple good macro lenses as well as the Raynox DCR 150 so have direct experience. I'd go for the Raynox first, then a long macro lens if you discover you need more working distance or better image quality at the edges. The Raynox image quality at the edges isn't good but that usually doesn't matter (look at some of the Raynox images posted here and you'll see that the edges aren't usually important to the image - the edges of a macro photograph will almost always be way out of focus anyway due to the small depth of field of macro photography and the 3D nature of real subjects.) Last edited by newarts; 10-07-2009 at 04:04 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Lens question	yoon395	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	08-25-2010 06:20 AM
Macro lens question	p-bags	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	03-31-2010 12:56 PM
IR macro lens question	kasey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	01-30-2010 02:38 PM
Macro lens question	thosan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-16-2008 05:10 AM
Macro Lens question	BeerCan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-07-2008 12:56 PM

10-06-2009, 07:33 AM	#2
Sew-Classic Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Ohio, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 238	Limited Budget?? How about one of the Raynox conversion lenses?? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

10-06-2009, 10:21 AM	#4
Rocnal New Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 5	Hi, I was looking for the same thing last year. If you're on a really tight budget, you can get an old K or M 50mm f/4 for ~100 bucks. They only have 1:2 magnification, and you have to get pretty close to the subject, but the picture quality should be really good. (I actually got a screw mount SMC Takumar, which are a little more, and need an adapter, but I'm now collecting a set of Takumars). I find it to be great for flowers, textures, etc. Brian

10-06-2009, 11:20 AM	#5
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	There is one currently listed in this forum: Sigma 50mm Macro F/2.8 It can also be used as a portrait lens.

10-06-2009, 12:11 PM	#6
netuser Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Azores Islands, Portugal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,236	With available money get Pentax DFA 100mm/2, great performer for macro and also portrait lens. With a small budget get an inversor ring to the kit lens and you will get more then 1:1 macro images.

10-06-2009, 01:29 PM	#7
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Originally posted by netuser With available money get Pentax DFA 100mm/2, great performer for macro and also portrait lens. With a small budget get an inversor ring to the kit lens and you will get more then 1:1 macro images. Quick correction, there is no DFA 100mm 1:2, its1:2.8. There is a Zeiss Makro-Planar ( i think it is Makro-Planar ) 100mm 1:2 but its a bit out of OP's league And as to macro lens I`d try to hunt down either Bokina 90mm or Vivitar 105 2.8 that has been already mentioned here.

10-06-2009, 03:23 PM	#9
netuser Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Azores Islands, Portugal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,236	Originally posted by ilya80 Quick correction, there is no DFA 100mm 1:2, its1:2.8. .......... True, I was just typing fast

10-06-2009, 07:17 PM	#10
jb1962 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: New jersey Posts: 3 Original Poster	Hi All, I very much appreciate all of the suggestions and responses. I will take some time and research each each of these options.Since I am inexperienced, my first inclination is to seek out a well cared for, used, dedicated macro lens. However, given all of the responses, it seems like this is a good time to learn a thing or two! Just an fyi, my wife is a florist, and I want to be able to photograph her work, so that is why I posted my original question. Will report back. John

10-06-2009, 07:52 PM	#11
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	As Rocnal said, I would consider a Pentax-M 50mm f/4 macro lens. These can be had for about $100 and give great images. The downsides are: manual focus, stop-down metering, and limited to filling the frame with a object twice the size of the sensor (aka 1:2 magnification). Some macro lenses will allow you to get even closer (1:1) but for flowers you will probably not need more. As a step up, the Pentax-FA 50mm f/2.8 macro has auto-focus and communicates aperture with the camera electronically. It will do 1:1, and can probably be found for about $300. It is considered one of the sharpest lenses Pentax has ever made.

10-07-2009, 07:57 AM	#13
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by jb1962 Hi All, Just an fyi, my wife is a florist, and I want to be able to photograph her work, so that is why I posted my original question. John Macro is great fun, but have you tried flower photography with your present lenses? A flower head doesn't need much magnification. Either kit lens should be able to fill the frame, especially with cropping for smaller flowers.

10-07-2009, 02:59 PM	#14
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I agree; unless you're wanting extreme closeups of the centers of inidivudal flowers, much floral photography doesn't really require great magnification. The 18-55 does 1:3 and that's often enough. But a Raynox 150 on the 50-200 gives you all the way from from there to 1;1 and beyond; this is going to be the cheapest / most effective way to get there should it become necessary.

10-08-2009, 06:39 AM	#15
ezechiel Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Poitou Charentes Photos: Gallery Posts: 131	I read a thread one some forum and it talks about the following cheap setup. - First lens mounted normally. - Find a cheap macro coupler ring - Reverse mount another lens in front of the first lens. How to calculate magnification? 1st lens focal lenght / 2nd lens focal lenght. I bought a sigma 24mm superwide for this reason, but still have to get the coupler ring.. This will give me a theoretical (I didn't tested it yet ^^ ) magnification of 8.3:1 for 20$... (in combination with the 50-200 at 200mm) For the price, it's worth trying.