[pres589]

I've a friend with a bit of photography experience. She's asked me for ideas for a low cost macro photography kit "for bugs and flowers" as an addition to her existing outdoor hobbies.


I've thought about what I'd want for such a kit and here's my thinking; digital, crop body for size as well as the automatic crop factor, and autofocus so that this isn't as much of a one trick pony setup (there's kids in the household so this could act as a portrait lens for them as well as the bugs). I'm thinking around $500 USD all-in. A twist/tilt screen seems really useful. And that brings me to the K-S2.


I know folks cannot give assurances to how well the stop-down solenoid will last on a camera that hasn't been converted over to a white solenoid. Is there any idea of how much risk there is of these failing? Would you actually go with such a body? The other option out of the Pentax world, which lacks the tilting screen, is the K-5 family, preferably the II or IIs.


For a lens I cannot see a reason to not go with an F or FA 100 Macro. Tamron 90 f2.8 AF macro's seem to sell for a little more for some reason and Sigma 105 EX DG's do as well. Nothing else really seems to make sense for a digital-only setup.

Is there anything else out there, maybe a Nikon, that I should consider? It seems like only the D7x00 models still have an in-body focus motor to drive AF lenses like the Tokina 100 or Sigma or the older Nikon 105 macro lenses. I think the value move is to stick with Pentax.


Any other suggestions or things I should keep in mind?

[tibbitts]

I've a friend with a bit of photography experience. She's asked me for ideas for a low cost macro photography kit "for bugs and flowers" as an addition to her existing outdoor hobbies.


I've thought about what I'd want for such a kit and here's my thinking; digital, crop body for size as well as the automatic crop factor, and autofocus so that this isn't as much of a one trick pony setup (there's kids in the household so this could act as a portrait lens for them as well as the bugs). I'm thinking around $500 USD all-in. A twist/tilt screen seems really useful. And that brings me to the K-S2.


I know folks cannot give assurances to how well the stop-down solenoid will last on a camera that hasn't been converted over to a white solenoid. Is there any idea of how much risk there is of these failing? Would you actually go with such a body? The other option out of the Pentax world, which lacks the tilting screen, is the K-5 family, preferably the II or IIs.


For a lens I cannot see a reason to not go with an F or FA 100 Macro. Tamron 90 f2.8 AF macro's seem to sell for a little more for some reason and Sigma 105 EX DG's do as well. Nothing else really seems to make sense for a digital-only setup.

Is there anything else out there, maybe a Nikon, that I should consider? It seems like only the D7x00 models still have an in-body focus motor to drive AF lenses like the Tokina 100 or Sigma or the older Nikon 105 macro lenses. I think the value move is to stick with Pentax.


Any other suggestions or things I should keep in mind?

The solenoid is sometimes a problem for the K-nn or similar bodies, as is the lens release button and tungsten light focusing on the K-5. If the flip screen allows you to photograph some things you might not otherwise then that might be an important factor. AF I wouldn't care much about for macro - just a nice-to-have. Some of those Pentax macros are just so ugly they might scare insects away, not to mention people, but realistically the several macro lenses I've owned have all produced excellent results. So far in my limited experience I've found it's hard to go wrong with a macro lens vs. zooms, where consistency seems to vary a lot from sample to sample, maybe due to the more complex construction.

[ToddK]

I have both a DFA 100mm f2.8 macro and an FA 50mm f2.8 macro. Of the two, I use my FA 50 much more than the DFA 100. The reason is the versatility of the 50mm. While it is not quite as good for insects, I have taken many insect photos with it. I really like to walk around with it in a garden or nature area, and take a variety of shots, not all of them macros. There are frequently used ones in good condition at KEH, MPB, or UsedPhotoPro for under $200.

[Des]

I've thought about what I'd want for such a kit and here's my thinking; digital, crop body for size as well as the automatic crop factor, and autofocus so that this isn't as much of a one trick pony setup (there's kids in the household so this could act as a portrait lens for them as well as the bugs). I'm thinking around $500 USD all-in. A twist/tilt screen seems really useful.

Sound reasoning, I think. A flippy screen is great for macro - more versatile than a tilt screen.

And that brings me to the K-S2..... Is there any idea of how much risk there is of these failing?

@photogem is the expert about this. He has answered this a number of times. From memory he estimates about 30% of K-S2 cameras. But there were some late in the production run that got the somewhat better solenoid used in the K-70.

I've got a K-S2 that I bought new in 2016. It was fine until I lent it to a family member and it spent more than a year in a cupboard unused. It had ABF when it came back. Paradoxically a camera that has had regular use is probably a safer buy than one with a low shutter count.

I wouldn't recommend a K-S2 to someone who wasn't going to use it regularly. And in good conscience they would need to know about the potential issue. But with those caveats, for the price it's hard to beat. It's well-featured and compact, the sensor is really sweet, image colours are great.

The other option out of the Pentax world, which lacks the tilting screen, is the K-5 family, preferably the II or IIs.

Lacks focus peaking too IIRC. Can't control the aperture on KAF4 lenses. Only the K-5iis has no AA filter. Similar AF. Pros: 14 bit RAW, more robust, faster frame rate, quieter shutter.

For a lens I cannot see a reason to not go with an F or FA 100 Macro. Tamron 90 f2.8 AF macro's seem to sell for a little more for some reason and Sigma 105 EX DG's do as well. Nothing else really seems to make sense for a digital-only setup.

I have both a DFA 100mm f2.8 macro and an FA 50mm f2.8 macro. Of the two, I use my FA 50 much more than the DFA 100. The reason is the versatility of the 50mm.

I've got the same combination as Todd. You couldn't go wrong with either. The FA 50mm is amazing value and razor sharp. I agree that it's more versatile, but I'm the opposite to Todd - I use the 100 a lot more. I prefer the working distance for macro. I also have a perverse preference for 100mm for landscapes too. Also good for wildlife if it's close enough. And for pets and portraits. (But I'm just biased to telephoto.)

[photogem]

The solenoid is sometimes a problem for the K-nn or similar bodies, as is the lens release button and tungsten light focusing on the K-5.

I guess you mean the K-m (K2000), there is no K-nn!
The K-m never had the ABF (stuck solenoid) problem because it uses the Japan-Solenoid.
It started with the K30 and was not just sometimes but very often, I would estimate it up to Dec. 2015 up to at least 30%, possibly even higher.
EVERY Pentax I know in a wide range with a solenoid starting with the K30 up to the K-S1 and K-S2 built up to 12/15 developed that problem: 100%
After 12/2015 much less. But some were hit.


The questioner didn't ask about the K5 but the K5II or K5IIs which neither has any problems with tungsten light AF nor the lens release button.
But even with the K5 the tungsten problem could be solved with firmware, not so with the K-m

So to answer the question:
Yes, as there is a save repair possible for ABF I would always buy one, because they are very good and other of the CASONIKON competition have other problems not so easy to repair. This is not against competition! But for the money each Pentax DSLR was unbeateable when it came onto the market despite efforts of competition and others to kill it.
Even if I would begin completly new I would right away buy a Pentax.
And the K-S2 is a great one!

After all: I am not a fanboy (way too old for that anyway... so.. neither a fan-grandpa...
saying that: I came from Leitz Leica R back to Pentax, so I was spoiled!

[pres589]

I had no idea it was ~30%. I was thinking much less and still wasn't sure if I should offer that up. 30% is insane. K-S2 is out.

I mentioned the K-5 'family' meaning the original K-5, the K-5 II, and the K-5 IIs. I still shoot regularly with my K-5 II. They seem like a stand out option considering how they function and ease of use vs. cost on the used market. They do not have real focus peaking but they do offer digital zoom in live view and I consider a tripod or similar supported shooting setup for macro meaning this should be sufficient.


I've been wanting one of the Pentax (or the Sigma EX DG) 100 macro's that offer autofocus for myself. I could buy the lens and let her try my K-5 II with that lens and let her see what she thinks.

[tibbitts]

I guess you mean the K-m (K2000), there is no K-nn!

No, I mean K-nn as in K-30, K-50, K-70. I didn't want to bother listing them out along with KS1, KS2, K500... I suppose I should have written K-NN. I was so lazy I didn't even use upper case, much less italics.

I believe the K-5 fix for the AF accuracy issue was the K-5ii, not firmware. And I would still interpret the OP as including all variations on the K-5, merely indicating a preference for the K-5ii, but including the original.

---

Last edited by tibbitts; 02-12-2022 at 06:49 PM.

[dms]

I don't think it is an obvious conclusion that a dedicated macro is best. In the field, a zoom has the advantage of allowing changing the magniifcation (image size) w/o moving the camera, and as macro is generally done from a tripod this is a big deal. If the magnification is generally only moderate (about 1/3 or less) a close focusing zoom may work much better. This is likely why the Vivitar series 1 70-210 mm lens was so popular--it having a close up ability and also a good image. Ultimate image quality is less but that is not likely an issue. If you want to focus somewhat closer a proper supplementary close up lens (screw on filter) would work well enough. Likely about a +2 if using something like the 70-210 mm Vivitar.The FA 28-70 f/4 might be an inexpensive fine lens w/ something like a +2 or +3 diopter. A 2 element diopter is probably a good idea--e.g. in 52 mm diameter a used Nikon 3T (1.5 diopter) or 4T (2.9 diopter). The Tamron Adaptall 35-80 mm lens (01A) is very good and close focusing--except it flares badly and thus not good with lights/sun in the image (unfortunately I found unusable w/ stage lighting).

Incidentally, I have all these lenses, as well as dedicated macro lenses (55 mm and 90 mm in Nikon F mount, and 50 mm and 105 mm in Pentax K) , and if I was planning on in the field macro work I would take the zoom + diopter approach. Even in the studio/home it is much easier.

[tibbitts]

I don't think it is an obvious conclusion that a dedicated macro is best. In the field, a zoom has the advantage of allowing changing the magniifcation (image size) w/o moving the camera, and as macro is generally done from a tripod this is a big deal. If the magnification is generally only moderate (about 1/3 or less) a close focusing zoom may work much better. This is likely why the Vivitar series 1 70-210 mm lens was so popular--it having a close up ability and also a good image. Ultimate image quality is less but that is not likely an issue. If you want to focus somewhat closer a proper supplementary close up lens (screw on filter) would work well enough. Likely about a +2 if using something like the 70-210 mm Vivitar.The FA 28-70 f/4 might be an inexpensive fine lens w/ something like a +2 or +3 diopter. A 2 element diopter is probably a good idea--e.g. used Nikon 3T or 5T. The Tamron Adaptall 35-80 mm lens (01A) is very good and close focusing--except it flares badly and thus not good with lights/sun in the image (unfortunately I found unusable w/ stage lighting).

That's a good point. Macro lenses tend to have a huge advantage when it comes to edge sharpness and consistent focus across the frame, but at least in my limited experience, center sharpness with various other solutions can be very good.

[pres589]

I thought to mention, and then decided not to, that I could see what my friend think of my DA-L 50-200 and pack of Vivitar branded close focusing diopters. Not an amazing lens, not an amazing set of filters, but together I was able to get some nice macro-ish images. And I agree about the flexibility of such a setup.


The suggestion gives me something to think about.

[photogem]

I've been wanting one of the Pentax (or the Sigma EX DG) 100 macro's that offer autofocus for myself. I could buy the lens and let her try my K-5 II with that lens and let her see what she thinks.

The K5II is a very good Pentax, the s-version that bit better.

The rubber of the Sigma EX Series doesn't age that well.
If one of the older but great Pentax 100mm macros, I'd prefer the F over the FA because they are easier to adjust in Manual mode.
That said: They don't offer Quick-shift which can be a pain sometimes.
That was the reason why I got the D-FA 100WR Macro. It is built like a limited and really worth it's price, smaller, lighter and WR.

[garywakeling]

Don't forget the joy of a cheap and easy to find 28mm and a reversing adapter can give some pretty good macro shots with whichever body works for you,

[swanlefitte]

How much are k3s these days? Pixel density helps with macro. At 1:1 a 5x5mm bug only uses 5% of a 24x18mm sensor. So a 16mp vs 24mp is 0.92 to 1.38Mp on the subject. With things closer to sensor size that doesn't matter so much. This is why m4/3 24Mp sensors are good for macro.
I use my f(ixed) ks-2 and the above is the only problem.
For a newbie I might go with a zoom and raynox close focus giving the telephoto/macro combo. If a specific reason for macro was known I might change to a specific solution. I think this is a great generalist way. A dedicated macro is nice though.
Unless someone is into cameras, their phone will give them results near as good as a 35mm lens so I would go longer.

[UncleVanya]

The Raynox add on macro lenses also offer great utility. They’re harder to use than dedicated macro lenses but not difficult.

The f/fa 100 can develop a problem where the cement in a double element starts to fail. This manifests as a fog around the outside of the element. My trusty F 100 macro did this eventually. That lens was sold with the understanding that it was more like an f4 lens and best on apsc not full frame. Results were still very good even with the issue.

I highly recommend the k-3 for macro as the extra pixel density is very useful.

Often overlooked is the fact that flowers rarely need a true macro lens. A close focusing telephoto is often more than enough. I’d expand the search to include lenses with good close focus max magnification.

---------- Post added 02-13-22 at 10:02 AM ----------

Also… the F lenses are lovely to me. A certain beer-goggle like nostalgia may be at work.

And in my experience the fa not f macro lenses are easier to focus… but only if the very often broken focus clamp is working.

Finally, The two things I really miss about the F 100 that the D FA 100 WR doesn’t give me: a physical Aperture ring (useful with bellows and tubes and adapting to non Pentax cameras), and a focus limiter. The ability to set the lens into a narrower focusing range was greatly appreciated.

[pres589]

Here's an example from a few years ago (i do not have easy access to all of my camera gear so I cannot take a new image to share today) from my DA-L 50-200 and a "+4" close focus filter from a cheap set of four filters. I think these are flowers on a basil plant just starting to bud out. Or oregano. Either way, they're very small, like a few millimeters across. I would like to do this again and maybe spend a little time getting the best results out of camera with this setup. I think I took this as an experiment and didn't spend much time on it when shot.



So I might just let my friend play with this setup and see what she thinks. A single high quality filter like a Raynox or maybe a Nikon #4T probably makes more sense vs. a $25 pack of four cheap filters.


Out of all of the Pentax AF 100mm macro lenses, the one I would want to own the most is the D-FA 100 that lacks WR due to the aperture ring and focusing clamp. Maybe better to settle on that when the money is available. I don't think the Sigma 105 EX's have the rubber failure issues that earlier Sigma's do from the "zen coatings" era (like the Super-Wide II AF does as an example) as I think the Sigma 105's are from a later era where rubber was largely removed from their lenses.


As for K-5's vs K-3's, I agree that it makes some sense to go for a K-3 or K-3 II, but they also cost more, and I'm not sure that I'm really that worried about the difference in pixel density.