[Nick Siebers]

Thanks rbefly for welcoming me to the forum and for the information. I have greatly appreciated the helpful answers from so many of the members here. The Pentax F 35-70 looks to be a good lens, I will see if I can find it online. The Vivitar 100mm looks to be a good choice as well.

+1 to the F 35-70. Nice little lens, good with close-ups.

[Na Horuk]

Wow, I was going to recommend the Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm or Sigma 70mm, and then the Pentax DFA 100mm, but there are already so many good replies.
I would recommend you get a macro lens, though, it is much easier to use than extension tubes and things.

[jimr-pdx]

I've tried most of the 'budget' macro lenses probably would have been cheaper to just buy the 100WR but o well.
My reason for shifting is that a macro lens is also an excellent prime, and so my needs change based on other lenses. The Sigma 50/2.8 was very nice, but 40 and 70mm lenses crowded it out. Since my DA70 fills its space really well I now have Sigma's 105mm as my macro and it's a great lens. You may have a greater need at 35mm (Limited macro), or 50 (several options); from 70-105mm several other great choices exist. I like the Sigmas for their limiter switch, as I recall the earlier Tamron 90mm that I owned did not have a limiter so hunting focus took a l--o--n--g time! I also got tired of the spin time on my Promaster 100/3.5 (aka Cosina, Vivitar and Pentax-FA 100/3.5). I still have my Quantaray 28-90 that goes 1:2, very talented for $30 though a bit slow generally at f/3.5-5.6.

None of these were optically indifferent, so you can't choose poorly!

If you are really tight on budget though, close-up filters or a reversing ring will do fine until you can afford more. Amazing shots have been shown on this site from those choices.

[t.manning]

Thanks boriscleto for the information on the Quantaray. It seems pretty versatile, though I am leaning toward the Vivitar 100mm F3.5

[PPPPPP42]

I do believe there is some confusion in the thread as to whether or not the person is looking for a "macro" lens that is really just a close focus lens, or whether or not it is a true super close up real macro lens that is desired.
If it is the former then I think suggestions have already been made, if the latter, AF is often a hindrance in real macro work due to the narrow depth of field so you may want to reconsider.

Also use fast fixed aperture parfocal zoom lenses if you plan to use an extension tube, the zoom becomes the focus (try it and see what I mean). I use my A35-105 F3.5 with my sigma A series extension tube and I love the combo to death. If I shift the lens to macro as well I can focus on stuff touching the front of the lens.

I will also remind you, it is ALWAYS better to save up for a good lens than to settle for a cheap one even if it takes much longer. A good lens will stay with you a long time as evidenced by the fact that most of my lenses could have taken pics of Reagan while he was in office and that's only because I don't want to use older than A series with a DSLR for the sake of speed and convenience.

[t.manning]

I have the Quantaray-branded version of this Sigma lens in 28-90, and it's a great value. It's a nice walkaround lens with a bit of macro (1:2) on the side. I don't know about AF focus hunting in macro, since I use it in MF mode, which is better for this type of shot anyway. I've gotten nice results in good light with this lens. The Vivitar listed in the Marketplace is well known as one of the best budget macro lenses out there.

Thanks paulh for your information and input on the "Quantaray-branded version of this Sigma lens in 28-90" . It seems to be a good lens though I really like the Vivitar 100mm.

---------- Post added 02-06-14 at 03:06 PM ----------

Thanks for your input Nick Siebers.

---------- Post added 02-06-14 at 03:07 PM ----------

Wow, I was going to recommend the Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm or Sigma 70mm, and then the Pentax DFA 100mm, but there are already so many good replies.
I would recommend you get a macro lens, though, it is much easier to use than extension tubes and things.

Thanks for your advice Na Horuk. Those are good recommendations though they are out of my price range right now.

---------- Post added 02-06-14 at 03:15 PM ----------

Thanks for your great advice jimr-pdx. I hadn't thought of a macro lens also making a good prime lens. You mentioned that a reversing ring would work as well. If you could explain a little about it and the difference between that and close up filters I would appreciate it.

---------- Post added 02-06-14 at 03:25 PM ----------

I do believe there is some confusion in the thread as to whether or not the person is looking for a "macro" lens that is really just a close focus lens, or whether or not it is a true super close up real macro lens that is desired.
If it is the former then I think suggestions have already been made, if the latter, AF is often a hindrance in real macro work due to the narrow depth of field so you may want to reconsider.

Also use fast fixed aperture parfocal zoom lenses if you plan to use an extension tube, the zoom becomes the focus (try it and see what I mean). I use my A35-105 F3.5 with my sigma A series extension tube and I love the combo to death. If I shift the lens to macro as well I can focus on stuff touching the front of the lens.

I will also remind you, it is ALWAYS better to save up for a good lens than to settle for a cheap one even if it takes much longer. A good lens will stay with you a long time as evidenced by the fact that most of my lenses could have taken pics of Reagan while he was in office and that's only because I don't want to use older than A series with a DSLR for the sake of speed and convenience.

Thank you for the advice PPPPPP42. To clarify I am not looking for a "true super close up real macro lens". I am looking for something that will enable me to get some "close up" pictures but not true 1:1 macro shots and that will work as a good landscape lens.

[loco]

If you can find an old Panagor 90mm/2.8 macro lens, they are sweet. Manual focus and metering, built like a tank. Very sharp. Well under $200. I love mine, though I find I use my D FA 50 macro more now because it's a bit easier to handle.

[t.manning]

Thanks Lori for your advice, I will definitely look and see if I can find one online.

[boriscleto]

I just bought a Rokunar 90mm F2.5 on shopgoodwill.com (interesting stuff turns up there from time to time). It's the same lens as the Panagor but with A contacts. I probably over paid, $179 with shipping, because it needs to be re-lubed. Hopefully Eric will be able to do it when I have some money.

[t.manning]

I just bought a Rokunar 90mm F2.5 on shopgoodwill.com (interesting stuff turns up there from time to time). It's the same lens as the Panagor but with A contacts. I probably over paid, $179 with shipping, because it needs to be re-lubed. Hopefully Eric will be able to do it when I have some money.

Thanks for the advice boriscleto.

[arkav]

+1 to the F 35-70. Nice little lens, good with close-ups.

If you're looking for that kind of dual purpose zoom lens, the 35-70 A F4 is also pretty good if you don't care about auto focus. Still not a true macro lens, and I'm not sure how cheap it might be.

I will also remind you, it is ALWAYS better to save up for a good lens than to settle for a cheap one even if it takes much longer. A good lens will stay with you a long time as evidenced by the fact that most of my lenses could have taken pics of Reagan while he was in office and that's only because I don't want to use older than A series with a DSLR for the sake of speed and convenience.

+1 on this . I mucked around with a variety of lenses ( including the zoom mentioned above ), extension tubes, etc. back in my film days before I broke down and spent the money on a M series 100mm F4. I never looked
back, and used that lens till the wheels fell off. When it was in danger of falling apart, rather than spend several hundred on the repairs, I went for the 100mm DFA WR. The new lens is definitely better, but in retrospect, I have to admit that the old beater produced surprisingly good results.

But going the dedicated macro route might only make sense if you do a fair amount of closeup work. The trick is, how will you ever know if you really want to do a lot of macro work until you get a lens that is
capable of producing decent results? That said, many modern lenses seem to be capable of near-macro closeups.

Cheers

[t.manning]

Thanks arkav for your advice.

[Steven Chain]

I think that I have a copy of the Tamron 28-70. I say think because the lens I have is a Tamron lens with the same specifications, however, my lens is an Adaptall which came with a removable K mount. The mount could be removed and replaced with a mount for another make of camera. The lens was given to me by a neighbor who also had a mount for a Konica. I haven't used the lens much. It seems sharp and I haven't much to complain about except that it does not focus much closer than the 18-55 kit lens that came with my K 30. The insert with the Tamron lens (yes I have it as my neighbor saved everything) says that the lens will focus down to .34 meters and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:4. I've taken photos with the Tamron, taken it off the camera and replaced it with the 18-55 and could see little difference on the screen.

[t.manning]

Thanks Steven Chain for your input. I actually found a Vivitar 28-70 3.4- 4.8 that would be a good landscape/ nature lens and also a decent "macro" one as well. Plus it is really cheap.

[Bonavista]

I have a K-50 and a pentacon 50 f1.8. I put a canon D500 and a Beroflex X2 converter on it and I assure you it can't get any better.

an example of 28mm minatures with 500D and 500D and Beroflex 2X converter.