[BLACKDRAGON]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Which lens are you talking about? The DFA 100mm macro WR is metal construction, I don't believe I've ever seen any PF on it and for a macro the AF is quite good except when it misses and goes all the way out and back. I'm guessing you are thinking of the earlier DFA 100 f/2.8 (non-WR version) The newer WR version has IMHO the same build quality as the Limited series. Not trying to start (or continue) an argument, I just thought perhaps you and Gazonk and Thibs are talking about different lenses.

Hi Jatrax, my apologies for the confusion. I actually have sitting on the desk next to me, [on loan], a SMC M F.4 100MM, a SMC M F2.8 100mm, a SMC FA F.2.8, and lastly the DFA F2.8 WR which is what I should have been talking about but wasn't!! I'm in the market for a 100mm macro [Pentax of course] and the local Camera Center who know me well have loaned me 3 of the 4 lenses and the SMC M F.2.8 is on loan from a friend.
I managed to use the DFA WR F2.8 a week ago and then unfortunately had to go into Hospital for an op but I'm back on my feet again. I have a reasonable collection of various Pentax old glass and have a lot of respect for them but have no objection in buying new glass if it warrants it. It didn't take me long in using the WR to find that the AF is somewhat slow and hunts, I do like aperture rings on lens and there ain't on on the WR, there's no Focus Limiter, and no AF/M switch. Yet I have a Tamron SP DI AF 272E 90MM Macro and it costs less new and has those things. I'm not disputing the the DFA WR is a fine lens, I'm just saying with the addition of those things it would be a step forward. I'm not a Pixel Peeper so I go on what my eye tells me regarding IQ and it gets to a point when it's very hard to tell any major difference between lenses regarding IQ as everyone's eyes and brain seem to interpret the renditions in their own way.

Maybe because that's nothing but obviously missing right now

Hi thibs, welL, I think it's previous obvious what's missing right now........a longer range Pentax branded remote control.!!

[detritus]

I agree that Pentax is limited for you, but what you are describing is not just macro, it's extreme macro. Not many people shoot extreme macro, 1:1 is tough enough. And not many people would pay over a thousand dollars for a lens that only shoots macro.

I don't think there's much chance that Pentax will fill this niche. Either you will to have to go with Canon, or keep being creative. If you unscrew the Raynox from its mount, and screw the element into a 43-49mm adapter, would you be able to use the ring flash?

What about tubes? I see the Kenko auto tubes for sale once in a while. They're a lot cheaper than an entire Canon outfit. I bought a $20 Vivitar A 2X TC and removed the glass. An inexpensive Auto 3X TC with the elements removed would allow more magnification, and still maintain auto exposure. Use both together and a Raynox on the end.

BTW, have you seen this site? Good stuff: Extreme Macro Photography

yes, u are right... greater than 1:1 is pretty extreme... shallow DOF is a bigger problem than not having the right gear

i have the vivitar 2x macro converter, a set of pk-a extension tubes and a few good macro lenses in the 90 to 125mm range.

what i don't have anymore, is free time

[audiobomber]

What Pentax needs more than anything is the HD 1.4X TC. The telephoto line is pretty sad. It's a shame they didn't release the TC along with the K-3.

A higher quality extended zoom would be nice, looks like maybe a 16-85?

Both of the above are already promised in the roadmap, as is a 100ish-400ish. I like the first two, not much interested in the telezoom. Another big hole in the lens line is a fast 24mm. That one is not for me either, but it's a real gap in the line.

i have the vivitar 2x macro converter

I've seen some nice results from that piece.

[detritus]

I've seen some nice results from that piece.

yes indeed... a very fun piece of gear to play with

[thibs]

Hi thibs, welL, I think it's previous obvious what's missing right now........a longer range Pentax branded remote control.!!

Of course

[thibs]

I will take Quick-Shift ahead of a focus limiter, any day.

One trick I've found using the D FA 100mm for telephoto, is to reset the focus ring to infinity after each series of shots. It is quick to focus this way and rarely hunts. If you start out with a focus point less than the subject distance, it almost always wants to rack in, and rarely hits the target when racking out. As soon as it misses focus or looks like it may hunt, I go for QS.

That's very interesting, I'll make sure to use this.
It may not help much guys looking for a fast AF in "not macro", usual short tele shooting which is the main use of a focus limiter.

* write the technique down for further use *

[audiobomber]

yes indeed... a very fun piece of gear to play with

Very nice! How is IQ of the Vivitar macro TC compared to a Raynox 250? What about magnification, I think the Raynox may give you stronger macro, but tighter subject distances?

[mee]

I will take Quick-Shift ahead of a focus limiter, any day.

One trick I've found using the D FA 100mm for telephoto, is to reset the focus ring to infinity after each series of shots. It is quick to focus this way and rarely hunts. If you start out with a focus point less than the subject distance, it almost always wants to rack in, and rarely hits the target when racking out. As soon as it misses focus or looks like it may hunt, I go for QS.



I agree that Pentax is limited for you, but what you are describing is not just macro, it's extreme macro. Not many people shoot extreme macro, 1:1 is tough enough. And not many people would pay over a thousand dollars for a lens that only shoots macro.

I don't think there's much chance that Pentax will fill this niche. Either you will to have to go with Canon, or keep being creative. If you unscrew the Raynox from its mount, and screw the element into a 43-49mm adapter, would you be able to use the ring flash?

What about tubes? I see the Kenko auto tubes for sale once in a while. They're a lot cheaper than an entire Canon outfit. I bought a $20 Vivitar A 2X TC and removed the glass. An inexpensive Auto 3X TC with the elements removed would allow more magnification, and still maintain auto exposure. Use both together and a Raynox on the end.

BTW, have you seen this site? Good stuff: Extreme Macro Photography

Who uses auto focus when shooting macro??? the Depth of Field is so narrow that it has been useless to use AF in my experiences. I move the whole camera back and forth a millimeter to change focus.

So you can do without the auto focus on the tubes.. that said look up Vivtar AT-22 on ebay or 2nd hand shops... those are the ones for Pentax (no auto focus).

such as these babies: Vivitar Automatic Extension Tube at 22 for Pentax 36mm 20mm and 12mm | eBay

It would be nice, I agree, if Pentax really stepped up their plan to include MUCH more accessories such as a modern released set of extension tubes, 180mm macro, or something similar to the MPE65. After looking at snowflake images taken using the Canon system, that type of macro lens would be incredible.. it goes well beyond 1:1 without using reversed lenses and tube stacks.. 1k+ USD lens though. ouch!

[audiobomber]

Who uses auto focus when shooting macro??? the Depth of Field is so narrow that it has been useless to use AF in my experiences. I move the whole camera back and forth a millimeter to change focus.

So you can do without the auto focus on the tubes.. that said look up Vivtar AT-22 on ebay or 2nd hand shops... those are the ones for Pentax (no auto focus).

I shoot macros with manual focus. I was talking about tubes with auto exposure (electronic control of aperture). That is a feature I value.

[detritus]

Very nice! How is IQ of the Vivitar macro TC compared to a Raynox 250? What about magnification, I think the Raynox may give you stronger macro, but tighter subject distances?

Yeah, could be a matter of opinion but I find the viv macro converter more versatile to use. There's the optical magnification and the extension tube functionality to allow u to get closer (useful for longer macro lenses).

It also leaves the front filter threads alone so its possible to mount led lights or ring flash.

I've never used a raynox cos of my setup - my ring flash needs the filter threads.

But I have seen some nice stuff taken with a raynox.

[pinholecam]

I have the AF160FC. its only benefit is that u have it in a neat, contained package without the hassle of a heavy custom mount and DIY diffusers. the modelling lights are also great for finding bugs in the woods at night.

but PTTL is not really value adding. I set it to manual for better consistency, especially on night shoots.

i like my gear and use it often. but i also recognize that it is an outdated product line if you compare it to what the competition had come up with.

i have, more than once, wanted to consider a 5DIII + MP-E 65 + MT24EX setup.

macro shooters looking for the most versatile set-up would seldom choose pentax. the lack of original and 3rd party accessories is a real bummer. barring DIY setups, the most easily available setup a pentax shooter can work with is a 1:1 macro lens with a raynox. and once u mount the raynox, u cant use the AF160 anymore...

and i would hate to have to tell the story of how difficult it was for me to find a set of PK-A extension tubes. it is almost embarrassing when i have to explain to new pentaxians that macro accessories are really limited for pentax shooters.

i do admit that this is a pretty niche market and market forces are at work when 3rd party manufacturers choose not to include pentax /k in their accessory range, or when hoya, then pentax (and now ricoh) have to make tough decisions about the customer base they can make money out of.

this means that we have to recognize the facts for what they are: the range is pretty limited and existing customers are having to trawl ebay for legacy gear, do a DIY, or move to a system that meets their needs.

I tend to find that some of the best lighting are DIY rather than impressive off-the shelf gizmos.
I'm pretty sure you are familiar with Thomas Shahan
Flickr: Thomas Shahan's Photostream

Don't even need to look far.
Just look at the consistently very good macro guys on CS using DIY setups.
chvictor - Big-headed bark spiders and others.
orionmystery - Eyes Eyes Baby! (his setups : My Macro Rig - Then and Now | Up Close with Nature )
loboclerk - http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1206353 (his setup : Macro Equipment )


I'd rather Pentax comes out with an optical 100mm f2.8 macro for the Q.
Samples uncropped for 'magnification' and len not at 1:1

[audiobomber]

It also leaves the front filter threads alone so its possible to mount led lights or ring flash.

I've never used a raynox cos of my setup - my ring flash needs the filter threads.

My Raynox 250 is mounted to my primes with a 43 to 49mm step up adapter. That leaves 49mm threads at the end. I often mount a lens hood, so I don't know why you wouldn't be able to mount the ring flash.

[detritus]

My Raynox 250 is mounted to my primes with a 43 to 49mm step up adapter. That leaves 49mm threads at the end. I often mount a lens hood, so I don't know why you wouldn't be able to mount the ring flash.

Interesting. I should try that

[detritus]

I tend to find that some of the best lighting are DIY rather than impressive off-the shelf gizmos.
I'm pretty sure you are familiar with Thomas Shahan

Don't even need to look far.
Just look at the consistently very good macro guys on CS using DIY setups.

I'd rather Pentax comes out with an optical 100mm f2.8 macro for the Q.
Samples uncropped for 'magnification' and len not at 1:1

we are all entitled to our opinions but you miss my point. i am simply saying that there is a disproportionate need, due to gaps in the product line-up, to trawl ebay for legacy stuff, and/or do DIY. it doesnt mean that i hate the brand or intend to jump ship. i'm just saying that the situation exists.

for pple who use systems with compatible accessories, but choose to DIY instead, this is a separate matter. there are many reasons for this. they made a choice, and so did we.

so there is no need to remind me that I have friends back home who are good photographers and i respect their works immensely. the macro forum makes me more homesick than ever.

but does that change my preference for a neat, well-designed setup consisting of original accessories that fits tight and works well? i may not be able to take pix as nice as thomas shanan, but i dont want to anyway. i just want to be me. and saying that diy gear takes better pix is just wrong. the photographer makes all the difference.

i do not like jury-rigged gear. i know it works for others and i have a lot of respect for pple who are good with their hands and make wonderful stuff to help them. but i am not like that and it doesn't work for me.

i do not want ricoh to makes these stuff just for me because something that doesnt sell is not good for the company anyway. if there is insufficient demand for even 3rd party manufacturers to come on board, the message is pretty clear to me that these are niche gear for a niche brand and i just have to live with the situation (and I have - since the days of my navy-blue K-X).

[audiobomber]

You guys should join the Macro group. It's pretty quiet there, we need more discussion.
Macro Photography - PentaxForums.com