Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-23-2020, 09:39 AM - 2 Likes   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Belcik Quote
I think that if talking about cheap the path is like this:
1. Grab some old lenses and mount them reversed
2. Any type of extensions of available lenses.
3. Cheap Macro lens - however here I would give my 5 cents and do not recommend anything like Sigma 50-200 that has macro option 200-300.

Tried all of them.
Did not reach to the level on normal Macro Lenses...
The lenses that work well reversed are not necessarily the ones that are particularly good used normally, and vice versa. Although a lens that is exceptional for both is the "K series" SMC Pentax 1:3.5 28mm. Here's an example, reversed on a bellows to give about 4:1 magnification (on a crop-sensor K10D, so the image represents about 4mm by 6mm of subject):



Compiled from a focus stack of 68 exposures. Here's an ordinary shot (Sigma 70mm macro) of the same moth:



12-23-2020, 10:05 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 2,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Belcik Quote
I think that if talking about cheap the path is like this:
1. Grab some old lenses and mount them reversed
2. Any type of extensions of available lenses.
3. Cheap Macro lens - however here I would give my 5 cents and do not recommend anything like Sigma 50-200 that has macro option 200-300.

Tried all of them.
Did not reach to the level on normal Macro Lenses...
It also somewhat depends on the definition the OP is using for "macro." And it also depends on what the OP is willing to carry all the times that a macro opportunity may present itself. That killer 180mm dedicated macro lens won't help if it's sitting in a box at home when you encounter an opportunity - that's where some of the smaller/lighter solutions can be better. If the OP is only doing macro when setting out to do so, or in a studio, that's one thing, but just being able to do macro at any time desired is something else.

But getting back to the OP's question: until now I missed the discussion in the item listing thread about manual vs. automatic - these are $15 auto extension tubes apparently. I was assuming no coupling at all, not just the missing A coupling.
12-23-2020, 06:06 PM   #48
Pentaxian
Thagomizer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London Ontario
Posts: 1,960
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
The lenses that work well reversed are not necessarily the ones that are particularly good used normally, and vice versa. Although a lens that is exceptional for both is the "K series" SMC Pentax 1:3.5 28mm. Here's an example, reversed on a bellows to give about 4:1 magnification (on a crop-sensor K10D, so the image represents about 4mm by 6mm of subject):



Compiled from a focus stack of 68 exposures. Here's an ordinary shot (Sigma 70mm macro) of the same moth:

Wow, that's an impressive stack! Nice detail. The K 28/f3.5 is one of the (many) lenses on my list.
12-24-2020, 03:05 AM   #49
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Maryland
Posts: 159
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
The lenses that work well reversed are not necessarily the ones that are particularly good used normally, and vice versa. Although a lens that is exceptional for both is the "K series" SMC Pentax 1:3.5 28mm. Here's an example, reversed on a bellows to give about 4:1 magnification (on a crop-sensor K10D, so the image represents about 4mm by 6mm of subject):



Compiled from a focus stack of 68 exposures. Here's an ordinary shot (Sigma 70mm macro) of the same moth:


You can almost see the DNA base pairs in that one.

12-24-2020, 07:13 AM   #50
Veteran Member
Belcik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Russia,Moscow
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 377
QuoteOriginally posted by Rococo Quote
Hi everyone, I am considering trying out macro photography and want to go the cheap route first but i am getting confused on my options. I have read that extension tubes are better that the little screw on lens kits you can get but just discovered there are issues if you want to try and use auto focus ( i am still learning so most of it is beyond me) I have a k70 with kit lens plus a 55-300 which hasnt been used yet. I have only tended to take quick auto shots out and about.

I saw this being advertisd here: Manual P-K Extension Tube Set (12mm, 20mm, 36mm) - $15 shipped! - PentaxForums.com

It seems to be what i am looking for but as the details about connections etc is beyond what i know, i am unsure! this set seems to be as 'auto' as you can get? does it mean i can use either of my lenses with it but i will need to sit down and understand how to set up a manual pic? or are there some simple settings etc i can use? is this above my best option and do i need to buy a 'manual' lens?


Sorry if this is all abit basic, but im being offered this or its equivalent as a Christmas present and dont know what to do.

Thanks
Please give some sample photos you would like to reproduce. As mentioned some posts above, serious macro photography might require stacking technics which require additional equipment.
What is your result you want to achieve? Talk to us via sample photos.
12-24-2020, 08:18 AM   #51
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,048
one thing that hasn't been mentioned ( as far as I know )

what type of macro photography is being discussed

does it matter if it is:

studio

or what I call

" macro on the go "

I have only dabbled with macro on the go

without tripod or flash

extenders, close up filter, reversed lenses

primarily for encounters with pollinators as I walk along with my D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro
12-24-2020, 08:55 AM   #52
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,579
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
one thing that hasn't been mentioned ( as far as I know )

what type of macro photography is being discussed

does it matter if it is:

studio

or what I call

" macro on the go "

I have only dabbled with macro on the go

without tripod or flash

extenders, close up filter, reversed lenses

primarily for encounters with pollinators as I walk along with my D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro
By the original definition, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater.[6]

I don't even call what you call "macro on the go" Macro. I call it pseudo macro... and the DA 55-300 PLM, 18-135 and 16-85 are excellent at it. Macro implies 1:1 or higher. You can just barely get to macro with a DFA 100 by having a tripod and walking the lens into it's minimum focusing distance. but it's easier to with the 1.4 TC attached the lens to give yourself some leeway distance and possible 1:1.4 magnification.

Let's not confuse the issue.

The second definition in which the subject is larger on the output device is pretty much meaningless/ Here's a bird shot DA*200 and 1.4 TC where if the screen is 28 inches across the bird is probably 10 times life size. But the DA*200 with 1.4 TC by no stretch of the imagination a macro lens, and that definition is functionally worthless. Any lens were the image can be blown up to 20x sensor see would be macro lens, and the definition would be meaningless.


By definition, the part of the subject to be photographed must actually fit into the physical dimensions of the sensor.

Let's not confuse the issue.

Maybe before you start making up terms you might make an effort understand the issue yourself. It''s not like these terms are undefined and need new terms added to the mix to define what's there. I hate to be the one to break this, cause I know there's probably going to be a backlash, but "macro on the go" isn't a thing.

We should leave the advice on real macros to those who have done it. Otherwise we're just clogging up the thread.


Last edited by normhead; 12-24-2020 at 09:19 AM.
12-24-2020, 09:10 AM   #53
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,048
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
By the original definition, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater.[6]

I don't even call what you call "macro on the go" Macro. I call it pseudo macro... and the DA 55-300 PLM, 18-135 and 16-85 are excellent at it. Macro implies 1:1 or higher. You can just barely get to macro with a DFA 100 by having a tripod and walking the lens into it's minimum focusing distance. but it's easier to with the 1.4 TC attached the lens to give yourself some leeway distance and possible 1:1.4 magnification.

Let's not confuse the issue.
I'm confused

I use a macro lens to get 1:1 photos of insects pollinating plants

my made up term is because I am moving from spot to spot seeking " targets of opportunity " instead of staying in one spot to take photos

is it easy no, but I'm just a dabbler in macro so it fits my purpose

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/3...ml#post4396385

perhaps we could continue this conversation by PM so not to hijack the thread ?

Last edited by aslyfox; 12-24-2020 at 09:17 AM.
12-24-2020, 09:27 AM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,579
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
I'm confused

I use a macro lens to get 1:1 photos of insects pollinating plants

QuoteQuote:
my made up term is because I am moving from spot to spot seeking " targets of opportunity " instead of staying in one spot to take photos
is it easy no, but I'm just a dabbler in macro so it fits my purpose

Pollinators in action - Page 21 - PentaxForums.com

perhaps we could continue this conversation by PM so not to hijack the thread ?
Maybe you should read the link I posted to wiki. I've explained my position. You usually attack me in such situations. No way, I'm inviting abuse by getting into a PM discussion with you.

But another tip, a 1:1 macro lens only takes 1:1 macro, at it's minimum focusing distance.

QuoteQuote:
my made up term is because I am moving from spot to spot seeking " targets of opportunity " instead of staying in one spot to take photos
Maybe when you need a term, instead of making one up, go through one of the reading lists you're so fondof posting and find out if there is already a term for it. I went through this same conversation with someone a few years ago, it might even have been you. They claimed because a lens used was a Sigma 70-300 macro the image they took was a macro. I didn't convince that person then that they were wrong. I'm unlikely to convince you now either. But myteriously it's the same issue, not understanding that because you take an image with a macro lens, doesn't make it a macro image. It would just be odd if two different people made that mistake, but it could have happened. It's easily straightened out, just reading the wiki link I posted. No need for my further input.

I'm just trying to eliminate the confusion you introduced into the thread."Macro on the go" is not macro. It's pretty much ordinary photography the same thing everyone does every day when they walk around with a camera. It requires no specialized equipment or technique.

Part of learning photography is learning precise terms and definitions.

Sorry if I'm bracing for backlash that isn't coming. You and I have been down this road before. At this point it's better I I'm prepared. You can ambush someone once. But that just means at this time I've already ducked to avoid return fire.

I'm willing to concede camera companies and some lens companies have taken extreme liberties with the term "macro". As photographers we should be more precise.

Last edited by normhead; 12-24-2020 at 09:55 AM.
12-24-2020, 09:47 AM   #55
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,048
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
. . . . .Sorry if I'm bracing for backlash that isn't coming. . . .
you are an excellent photographer

I hope your recovery from your surgery goes well
12-27-2020, 08:13 AM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 2,047
For the benefit of the OP and anyone else interested, the Nikon School macro presentation is free until the end of the year, and I believe Tamron is doing their free macro webinar early in 2021. Although since it seems necessary to warn everyone, I'm pretty sure neither one will treat macro as strictly limited limited to 1:1 or greater magnification.
12-27-2020, 08:21 AM   #57
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,579
QuoteQuote:
I'm pretty sure neither one will treat macro as strictly limited limited to 1:1 or greater magnification.
It's actually fairly unlikely. Given the number of small sensor cameras that claim to do macro, when you can barely fit the head of a pin 1:1 on their sensors. In camera company parlance, macro means a small subject is made big. Sigma even calls their 1:2 lenses macro. Pentax doesn't call any lens a macro that doesn't do 1:1.

Last edited by normhead; 12-27-2020 at 08:43 AM.
12-27-2020, 10:59 AM - 1 Like   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Pentax doesn't call any lens a macro that doesn't do 1:1.
Really? How about any of the K/M/A 100mm f4 macros or the FA 100mm f3.5. All maximum 0.5x magnification.

Added - the K/M 50mm f4 macros also.

Last edited by steephill; 12-27-2020 at 11:02 AM. Reason: adding info
12-27-2020, 12:33 PM - 1 Like   #59
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,579
QuoteOriginally posted by steephill Quote
Really? How about any of the K/M/A 100mm f4 macros or the FA 100mm f3.5. All maximum 0.5x magnification.

Added - the K/M 50mm f4 macros also.
Ancient history.

I was talking about what they do now, not the whole 100 years of the brand.
12-27-2020, 02:14 PM   #60
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,552
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Ancient history.

I was talking about what they do now, not the whole 100 years of the brand.
Yep...not since about year 2000 or whenever the FA 100/3.5 Macro went out off market.


Steve
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, budget macro, bulletin, customer service, extension, image, lens, life-size, macro, magnification, minolta, object, people, ratio, ricoh imaging, size, suggestion, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro desktop lighting on a budget Liney Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 10 12-25-2019 05:39 PM
Macro ratio confusion Mistlefoot Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 09-15-2013 01:15 PM
A bit of confusion on Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (AF Lens) RickyFromVegas Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 05-09-2011 09:22 PM
Macro confusion....... gsrokmix Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 11-26-2009 09:33 PM
K100D Macro mode confusion BobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 02-21-2007 08:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top