[esrandall]

My apologies for posting in the wrong forum.

I don't think you should throw out the idea of macro shooting, especially since you came here looking for help with it

The most important thing here is being comfortable with your gear. I only mentioned the Pentax 100mm f/4, because it was a good inexpensive way to get your feet wet, and the lens itself is excellent. I don't have the sharpest eyes either, but I mainly shoot flowers, and they don't try to run away on me. To really get the 1:1 with bugs, the MF allows you to bring the part of the bug you want into focus -- into focus. The AF tries hard, but you just don't have that level of control. With all of that being said, being in your shoes, I would pickup a nice used Tamron 90 (or Sigma 105), and if you were getting shots that made you happy on your previous setup -- I guarantee you'll get plenty of great shots with this setup, as well. I do almost everything hand-held, and forum members like "old4570" have taught me a lot about flash and rigging (on the super-cheap), and I get plenty of shots with AF and a $6 soft box on the pop-up flash, that make my friends/family, and myself -- plenty happy. The nice thing about the Tamron is that if you shoot it wide-open (f/2.8) it doubles as a nice portrait lens, too. One of those lenses that you really can't lose with. And who knows, over time, you might just start playing around with the manual focus, as well. Then you have the best of both worlds. I will also say that if you don't have your heart set on bugs, then there are plenty of AF choices in the 50mm range that can be had for around $200, or so. I have a Sigma 50mm EX DG f/2.8 that always delivers, whether it's true macro shooting, or just "close-up" shooting.

So don't get discouraged by all of this technical talk, or whether or not you can shoot true macro with AF/MF/whatever. Know that any true macro lens has the capability of giving you solid results, and those same results will only get better as you shoot more

[Bruce Clark]

"What does all this mean. Trial and Error. Jump in feet first and start swimming. You will learn along the way and develop techniques that suit you. But never ever give up."

I guess this sums up my philosophy on photography and life in general. That's me and I understand my way of going about things does not suit everybody. For instance I have a very good friend, a work colleague, and a very competent photographer who is the exact opposite to me. He bought himself a very expensive Nikon Camera D90 I think. He spent months reading all the literature on all major camera brands and models, entered all the pertinent data into spreadsheets, comparing this and that before he settled on the Nikon. After he bought the thing, he spent another month reading the manual before he even turned it on. As I said he is a very competent photographer, I have seen some of his images. Me on the other hand bought my K-7 purely because I had a collection of old Ricoh PK lenses that would fit. That's it, no other consideration. On the way home from the camera store I ripped open the box and was delighted to find there was some charge in the battery. I could fire off a few shots out of the train window on the way home. The manual is for when I can't figure something out myself.

He thinks I am crazy, I think he is crazy but we are good friends and appreciate each others work. It is just that we go about things differently.

[csa]

I don't think you should throw out the idea of macro shooting, especially since you came here looking for help with it

The most important thing here is being comfortable with your gear. I only mentioned the Pentax 100mm f/4, because it was a good inexpensive way to get your feet wet, and the lens itself is excellent. I don't have the sharpest eyes either, but I mainly shoot flowers, and they don't try to run away on me. To really get the 1:1 with bugs, the MF allows you to bring the part of the bug you want into focus -- into focus. The AF tries hard, but you just don't have that level of control. With all of that being said, being in your shoes, I would pickup a nice used Tamron 90 (or Sigma 105), and if you were getting shots that made you happy on your previous setup -- I guarantee you'll get plenty of great shots with this setup, as well. I do almost everything hand-held, and forum members like "old4570" have taught me a lot about flash and rigging (on the super-cheap), and I get plenty of shots with AF and a $6 soft box on the pop-up flash, that make my friends/family, and myself -- plenty happy. The nice thing about the Tamron is that if you shoot it wide-open (f/2.8) it doubles as a nice portrait lens, too. One of those lenses that you really can't lose with. And who knows, over time, you might just start playing around with the manual focus, as well. Then you have the best of both worlds. I will also say that if you don't have your heart set on bugs, then there are plenty of AF choices in the 50mm range that can be had for around $200, or so. I have a Sigma 50mm EX DG f/2.8 that always delivers, whether it's true macro shooting, or just "close-up" shooting.

So don't get discouraged by all of this technical talk, or whether or not you can shoot true macro with AF/MF/whatever. Know that any true macro lens has the capability of giving you solid results, and those same results will only get better as you shoot more

Thank you for the encouragement! It means alot! I will look for the Tamron 90 and see what I can do with it! The fun is the excitement of seeing the results that please yourself, when trying a new piece of equipment.

[csa]

Bruce, the image in your post made me laugh out loud!!

Thanks!

[starjedi]

This Spring I will be getting a macro lens for bugs, flowers, etc. I'm shooting with a K10D. What would be your suggestions for a good all around macro. Usually I can get pretty close to my subjects. Also, other brand lens suggestions welcome, as well as Pentax!

I don't know whether a 100mm or say a 50mm (macro) would be the best solution for my needs.

Tamron 90 2.8, good bokeh and very sharp. Now a days can find dirty cheap at second hand or even new around or below $300, much cheaper than those old macro lenses like tokina 90 or vivitar/kiron/lester a fine 105mm.

[csa]

Funny, I was just looking at a Tamron 90 F2.8.

[carpents]

"What does all this mean. Trial and Error. Jump in feet first and start swimming. You will learn along the way and develop techniques that suit you. But never ever give up."

Problem I have is that I can't afford to jump in feet first with around $300 on the line. I want to be absolutely sure (as I can be), before I buy something I can use comfortably. Also I worry around manual focus, as my eyes certainly are not sharp anymore.

As I mentioned, I've done macro before, but not with a dslr.

For flowers, you'll have no problems with any of the mentioned lenses.

I'll add that I covet the Sigma 70mm as a good focal length for Pentax DSLRs. (I mention it in my latest article: Building a Quality Lens Kit on a Budget - Gear Guides | PentaxForums.com)

You also can't go wrong with the Pentax 50mm macro. See the user reviews here: SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

(I've owned the Pentax FA 100/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, a Nikon AF 200/4, and loads of manual focus macros. In all seriousness, they're all excellent, it's not as hard as finding e.g. decent super-wides.)

[csa]

Well, I didn't give up; rather I just bought a mint Sigma 105 EX-DG macro right here on Marketplace.

[esrandall]

Well, I didn't give up; rather I just bought a mint Sigma 105 EX-DG macro right here on Marketplace.

Love that lens. My best friend has let me shoot with it before, and it's great. Good time ahead for you

[csa]

Thanks Eric! I'm very excited about getting this! Now, if only Spring will hurry up so I can go bug hunting!

[TER-OR]

PS. I'm using the K5 and FA100 for field studies, doing bee surveys. Have a look at my Flickr site to see, in the Albums you'll find the Fermilab study pictures.

[arkav]

Well, I didn't give up; rather I just bought a mint Sigma 105 EX-DG macro right here on Marketplace.

Well, the horse has left the barn, but perhaps these few thoughts might help someone else who comes along later.

Some responses have been very black and white in terms of whether or not autofocus is useful in macro. Yes, if you're doing 'true' macro, autofocus is probably not worth using. But many people
are going to use their macro lens for 'closeup' work, or even normal shooting. If you like using auto-focus for non-macro shooting, then it makes sense to get an auto-focus macro lens so it can
do double duty. How many people are going to invest in a high quality lens and then use it exclusively for one type of shooting?

If you ARE getting an autofocus lens, then getting one of the Pentax lenses has one advantage that hasn't been mentioned - quick shift. Again, it may not be important for true-macro, but for closeup
work, if you're using auto focus for a mobile subject, it's handy to be able to just reach out and tweak your focus ring without having to switch from auto to manual focus on your camera body. And if you
take advantage of quick shift on your other pentax lenses, it can become a habit that's hard to break when you have your non-pentax autofocus lens mounted ( which I'm finding with my Tamron 17-50 ).
I've got the DFA100 WR and I like having quick shift. ( I'm considering making it a rule to NOT buy any autofocus lens that doesn't have Quick Shift. )

Several people have recommended the older F4 macro lenses. I used an M series 100mm F4 extensively for many years, and yes, it's an excellent lens and an inexpensive way to get your feet wet.
But if your eyesight isn't great, then I would recommend trying to get a macro lens with F2.8 maximum aperture. This will give you a brighter view in your viewfinder, which is very helpful for macro work, especially
if your eyesight isn't as good as it used to be ( which is the case for me as well ).

It might have been tough to find a used DFA 100 macro lens within your budget. I don't know if the FA 100 has quick shift or not. The Tamron would probably have been a decent lower cost option -
a highly regarded lens, F2.8 but without the quick shift.

Not familiar with the lens you picked but it looks to be a good solid choice. Make the most of it!

[csa]

Thanks for a very nice in-depth post on macros. I was aware of the quick-shift feature; however when a mint macro that fits my needs came along, I no doubt would have regrets if I had not purchased it; since it is rated very highly. I've never used the quick-shift, so I don't know what I might be missing; but I'm sure it's very nice to have.

I do hope that this thread will be of help to others that was in my position, wanting to get started in macro, and need advice!

[BrianR]

I'm sure you'll love your sigma. I had considered it when I was first looking at macros, and optics wise they're all pretty top-notch.

It might have been tough to find a used DFA 100 macro lens within your budget.

Just want to point out there's currently a non-WR version in the Marketplace for $325 and I've seen it down to $300, the WR sibling has made the old version much more affordable. It also has an aperture ring (handy on cheap extension tubes) that the WR version lacks.

I agree 100% about the autofocus, it's great for 'normal distance' stuff and quick shift is awesome. The DFA100's are great at any distance, not just closeups.

[slowhands95128]

Whoa, back the truck up here. You don't need a megabucks lens to do macro -- you can work with what you already have.

Here are cheap and easy ways to start macro that don't require big $. The first is simply a close up filter / filters ($10+). Put this on the lens you have and you will instantly focus more closely. Even a +1 or +2 close up filter does a lot. Try it out before you plunk down the bucks for mega macro lenses. Get your feet wet with close up filters. The price I mentioned is for single element filters that are sharp in the middle, but slightly soft at the edges. There are some very high quality achromatic close up filters that are superb, but more than the $10 I mentioned. You can go that route later, if close up filters appeal. Close up filters take no space, so always carry a set in the field,

The second low cost option is an extension ring. Once again this gets you closer too, using your regular lens. I like one with A contacts, which I make from a cheap 2x teleconverter by unscrewing the optics ($10+). Again, cheap, compact, easy to stuff in the camera bag for occasional use.

To make a short focal length lens longer, you can also screw on a front converter. I know nobody likes these because they think point and shoot, low quality. Partly true, but not always. There are good quality ones from the major camera vendors like Canon, Nikon and Olympus (and from lens maker Raynox) that work so well. They get closer, and don't cost you light the way a rear converter or extension ring does. Again, you leverage your existing lens and the investment is modest.

You will find that auto focus gets in the way for macro. The camera does not know the right point to focus on, so you need to take control with manual focus. To help with manual focus, you want to change the viewfinder screen in your camera to one with split image microprism. These are cheap on ebay ($30+) but mandatory for manual focus. The best are KatzEye, but they cost upwards of $200, well worth it if you manual focus a lot but hard to swallow at first. Search the forum for this topic to see what I am talking about

All that said, for a first real macro lens on a budget I suggest the 100mm 3.5 lens that people already mentioned. It's good, and it's cheap. They are branded Vivitar, Phoenix, Promaster, Cosina, but they are all the same (Pentax even rebranded one and sold it as Pentax, tells you something). Be sure to get the macro close up filter that comes with the lens if you buy used (often missing).

That's another perspective, for macro on the cheap. I like to start simply, walk before you run.