[Youngster]

Hi all,

I recently sold a number of 50mm Macros on this forum, so I thought it might be nice to share some experience I have gathered (although I am by no means an expert) on their use.

I know many people prefer 100mm Macros, but I hope this thread will not turn into a debate about what is best, rather, I would like to gather everyone's advice on what is the best technique for using a shorter macro.

1. For really good clear shots, a tripod is a must. It is extremely difficult to handhold a shot from a 50mm macro at 1:1 due to the short distance in order to keep focus and the extremely shallow depth of view.

2. If you are doing handheld shots, good lighting is critical. A macro with an "A" aperature setting will help a great deal because it will allow you to easily use a flash. While it will do in a pinch, the built-in flash is not ideal, first because the close firing distance often will create a harsh shadow and 2nd because some lenses will obstruct the flash because you have to be so close to your target. Ideally, use a tripod in a well lit spot and just take long exposures. A ringflash or ringlight would be great if you can get your hands on one. Of course, our Pentax's P-TTL makes those all the more difficult to obtain.

3. I find that while everyone loves the "fast" lens, in macro work, a high aperature is much more critical because it increases your depth of field. I usually work somewhere between f11-f22. Sometimes even smaller aperatures are better (unless you are going for some specific blurring effect in your photo).

4. If you insist on doing 1:1, (although many people seem hung up on this, I really don't think it matters that much), you will need to move the camera itself closer and farther since you can't let the lens do it for you. That is why a tripod with a zoom type head will make your life a lot easier.

5. Due to the close distances involved in using a 50mm Macro, it works best shooting inanimate objects. You can get many impressive shots of really ordinary objects that makes others scratch their heads wondering what it is.

Watches, a spindle of thread, fabric, a melon skin, everything becomes a whole new world!
I look forward to seeing photos from all of you! (And don't blame me if you get too close to that bee and it decides you need a closer look at its rear end! )




I hope many of you more experienced hands at macros take the time to add your wisdom to this thread. If I am wrong or misinformed on anything I have written above, I appreciate any correction.

Once again, please, no equipment debates, let's work with what we have. The 50mm Macro.

Thank you.

[LeoTaylor]

I received the Pentax 50mm f2.8 Macro for a present. I'm a beginner in the Macro world, but get some advice from my wife who has the manual version of the lens.

I've taken some photos with it: flowers from 6? inches away and birds from 18? inches. I looking forward to some hints on getting the most from this great lens.

[jgredline]

I have the 50F/1.4 non macro and have considered the 50 f/2.8 macro. I too would be interested in tips.

[Tom M]

This might sound odd but, I've been able to get much closer focusing distances with the 16-45 that what Pentax states. Like, about an inch from the lens front element.

This bull is about an inch away. I just crank down the aperture. K10D, DA 16-45, F-22, 30/sec's, ISO-400, 0-EV..

---

Last edited by Tom M; 03-05-2008 at 06:21 PM.

[Chako]

I don't have a 50 macro but I do have an old Rowi portable copy stand. It is the perfect thing for taking close-ups of coins etc. Nothing beats a copy stand for that type of work.

I usually set the camera to manual focus, leave the lens at the setting I want, and micro adjust the whole camera in three planes of direction using the copy stand.

I do not have a right angle finder for the Pentax yet. It’s another something on the list to get eventually.

[wjwncpro]

The SMC-A 50/2.8 Macro is my sharpest lens that I have, but I don't use it for macros. Taken with the A50/2.8 + DS

[LED]

One of my first macro photos taken with Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro, you can call it a test. Pretty hard to take the picture at f/2.8 in 1:1 mode, the DOF is so narrow.

[jgredline]

I shot this yesterday evening. It was with the FA 50/1.4 and from everything I have read and heard, this $200.00 lens works better than the $400.00 macro lenses. I don't know if that is accurate or not, as I do not have a 50 macro to compare to...

EXIF data
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/400 second = 0.0025 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 14/10 = F1.4
# Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400
# Exif Version = 0221
# Original Date/Time = 2008:02:16 17:09:15
# Digitization Date/Time = 2008:02:16 17:09:15
# Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 8643856/1000000
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/400 second
# Aperture Value (APEX) = 970854/1000000
Aperture = F1.4
# Exposure Bias (EV) = 3/10 = 0.3
# Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)
# Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
# Focal Length = -1/1 mm = -1 mm
# Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)
# Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
# Scene Type = directly photographed image
# Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
# Exposure Mode = manual exposure (1)
# White Balance = auto (0)
# Focal Length in 35mm Film = 75
# Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
# Contrast = normal (0)
# Saturation = low (1)
# Sharpness = hard (2)
# Subject Distance Range = close view (2)

[egordon99]

Javier - That is a nice photo, and the FA 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens, but it does not focus nearly as close as a 50mm Macro that goes down to 1:1. That's the WHOLE point of a macro lens. So I disagree that "this $200.00 lens works better than the $400.00 macro lenses", because you have to define "works better". It's faster, might have better bokeh, but it does not focus as close. So if you need to focus CLOSE, than a macro lens would be better than the 50mm f/1.4.

[jgredline]

Javier - That is a nice photo, and the FA 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens, but it does not focus nearly as close as a 50mm Macro that goes down to 1:1. That's the WHOLE point of a macro lens. So I disagree that "this $200.00 lens works better than the $400.00 macro lenses", because you have to define "works better". It's faster, might have better bokeh, but it does not focus as close. So if you need to focus CLOSE, than a macro lens would be better than the 50mm f/1.4.

I did not think about the 1:1.
As far as closeness goes, your right..If someone was shooting small bugs then my lens might now be the best. The only true Macro I have is a Tamron / Quantary 90mm F/2.8 and that is a pretty good lens. I have used it on spiders and bugs.

I shot this pic of this spider appx 1/4 inch in size with a 90mm macro lens....



[/quote]

[LeoTaylor]

Javier,

Stunning spider photo! When the weather turns warm I need to take my new Pentax macro out and hunt for bugs.

Leo Taylor

[jgredline]

Javier,

Stunning spider photo! When the weather turns warm I need to take my new Pentax macro out and hunt for bugs.

Leo Taylor

Thanks Leo. I appreciate the kind words.
Macros is something I really need to do more of, specifically bugs and insects and little stuff...