Macro lenses, hard choice

HeG · 06-01-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

I don't use a tripod for my shots

Okey, then you have to be very steady on your hand or I don´t get it how you can get so good pictures without tripod. Or does it matter what kind of extension tubes you have?

Quote:

I believe he was referring to the physical size of the lenses themselves - some of those are bigger than others, and that might matter to you.

This issue is sooo hard to decide anything about, since I like the weight of the pentax and at the same time I like the tamron´s price (can by something plus the macro...

) Okey, if I buy pentax it would be the WR-version.
I do want to get the best macro (regardless of price) since I don´t have so much money I could go and by the other one if I´m not satisfied.

And since I haven´t read any so much differences between the lenses (that I understand).

One other thing I´m wondering about is if it´s possible with any macro lens also take pictures underneath things, for example a flower?

Last edited by HeG; 06-01-2010 at 12:13 PM.

yeatzee · 06-01-2010, 01:42 PM

You'll always see me in defense of the sigma 105mm in threads like this. Its just an incredible lens. I've got 24 images in PPG (see signature) using the lens. Check out my flickr (also in my signiture) to see more images. If your to lazy for that here's a taste:

I've used the tamron 90mm and did not like the build/feal of it. YMMV

darrenleow · 06-01-2010, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

As I said above, in order for a shorter focal length length to provide the same magnification as a longer focal length one, it has to allow you to focus from closer. But we're talking about small differences here, and again, it just won't matter as far as how much detail you can get - 1:1 magnification is 1:1 magnification, regardless of whether it's done with a 90mm lens from 29cm away of with a 100mm lens from 30cm away. Exactly the same amount of the flower will fit in the frame either way: 1 inch, as I said previously, because 1:1 magnification always means 1 inch of the subject fits in the frame when using a camera with a sensor that is 1 inch wide. So if you want to see how much that is with the flowers in your garden, just take a ruler with you. 1:1 magnification means the picture will consist of 1 inch worth of flower - it's as simple as that. 1 inch is just a small part of larger flower like an iris, but it's a whole bunch of blossoms for smaller flowers like lilacs, for instance.

Agreed, but the perspective from both photos will be quite different, the shorter macro lens will include more of the background while the longer macro lens will throw the background into a smooth blurred backdrop. Another consideration when choosing an insect-shooting macro lens, apart from working distance.

Marc Sabatella · 06-01-2010, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by HeG

I haven´t read any so much differences between the lenses (that I understand).

That's because those lenses are way more similar than different. You could flip a coin to decide and do as well as any other method.

Quote:

One other thing I´m wondering about is if it´s possible with any macro lens also take pictures underneath things, for example a flower?

Interesting question. You'd need a lens that was physically small so you could fit it and the camera under the flower, and also that had a very short minimum focus distance. Seems like the DA35 would be way to go for this.

newarts · 06-02-2010, 06:55 AM

Here's an example of the effect of focal length on Bokeh (same subject, same background, same f-stop, same magnification):

BUT the working distance for the 90mm lens was 90/50 greater than that for the 50mm lens.

BUT at the same magnification the 90mm lens was 90/50 times harder to hold steady.

This is always the case: shorter lenses are easier to hand-hold, longer lenses show less well focused, more restricted background.

Longer lenses don't scare the bugs, shorter lenses do.
Longer lenses don't block the light, shorter lenses do.
Longer lenses weigh more.

Dave in Iowa

**Digitalis** · 06-02-2010, 07:11 AM

just pick one,they are all good...

jmbradd · 06-02-2010, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by enoeske

I use an old smc 50mm f/1.4 with 50mm of extension tubes which gives me 1:1 magnification. Sometimes I don't use all 50mm, and get less than 1:1 depending on if I need it for my subject. If you are patient, you can get insect shots but you have to be really close (as in 1-2 inches). Flowers don't care how close you are. Best of all, the lens + extension tubes were only around $100 total from KEH.com. Great results for cheap. Just throwing this out there as an option.

If you want to try out macro shooting, this might be a route to try. You can still go all out and get a dedicated macro lens later if its the right kind of photography for you. I am happy with my results and don't really see the need for a more expensive lens.

The links are higher res 1600px for more detail
Pink flower with dew

Wasp

Dandelion in B&W

Fly in B&W

Green Stink Bug

Dew Drops on Leaf

+1 for this route. I have a reversing ring and focus is a pain. You think manual focus is hard? Try focusing by swaying =) I'm buying a macro lens too (sigma 70mm f/2.8 is more for me I think) but i've earned it in my mind

yeatzee · 06-02-2010, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by jmbradd

+1 for this route. I have a reversing ring and focus is a pain. You think manual focus is hard? Try focusing by swaying =) I'm buying a macro lens too (sigma 70mm f/2.8 is more for me I think) but i've earned it in my mind

Every macro shooter I've ever talked to sets the magnification and moves back and forth to focus, me included.

henryp · 06-03-2010, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by HeG

I have noticed I do like bokeh (at least under f3.5)

I don't want to split hairs on this but all lenses have bokeh. Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas. Some lenses have good bokeh and some bad, but they all have it.

Originally posted by imtheguy

I have another suggestion; order the one you THINK you want today from B&H and if it does not meet expectations, return it for no charge and get the next lens in line. Its cheaper than renting one to test it out. Case in point, I was sure the Sigma 105mm macro was the one I wanted but returned it to B&H after 10 days for the Tamron 90mm and couldn't be happier. B&H makes returns quite easy by emailing you a UPS shipping label.

Thank you. We appreciate your suggesting ordering from us.

Jools · 06-03-2010, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

just pick one,they are all good...

Yeah I agree just pick one. It'll be a learning session.

BTW, Digitalis love that pix. Just grossed my wife out.

**jbinpg** · 06-03-2010, 01:56 PM

"Swaying" plus catch-in-focus is a tried and true macro shooter method. I prefer the longer macro lenses myself.

**Digitalis** · 06-04-2010, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Jools

Digitalis love that pix. Just grossed my wife out.

I hate it how people think that life and death are only experienced by humans and little furry animals...we're all part of a chain, I was just documenting it.

RioRico · 06-04-2010, 03:47 PM

I'll leave soon on a multi-month tent-camping trip, and I'm hauling (too) many lenses along. Too much macro, even. How much? An old M42 Macro-Takumar 50/4 just arrived yesterday; it goes, along with the M42 Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro. And M42 Meyer Triopan 100/2.8 and Hanimar 135/3.5 with a thread reversal ring to stack Takumar 55/1.8 and 35/3.5 and 28/2.8 lenses for great magnification. And an M39 Industar-50/3.5 on tubes. And some mount reversal rings, just in case. And a Raynox DCR-250. And some diopter lenses.

And what did those cost? In total, rather less than a single AF macro lens.

newarts · 06-05-2010, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I'll leave soon on a multi-month tent-camping trip, and I'm hauling (too) many lenses along. Too much macro, even. How much? An old M42 Macro-Takumar 50/4 just arrived yesterday; it goes, along with the M42 Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro. And M42 Meyer Triopan 100/2.8 and Hanimar 135/3.5 with a thread reversal ring to stack Takumar 55/1.8 and 35/3.5 and 28/2.8 lenses for great magnification. And an M39 Industar-50/3.5 on tubes. And some mount reversal rings, just in case. And a Raynox DCR-250. And some diopter lenses.

And what did those cost? In total, rather less than a single AF macro lens.

Wow! I hope you needn't carry all those lenses far!

RioRico · 06-05-2010, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by newarts

Wow! I hope you needn't carry all those lenses far!

What? Those are just the start. I've got my usual AF zooms: DA10-17, DA18-55 (with filters) DA18-250, FA100-300, Lil'Bigma 170-500. Then various primes (working up): 16/2.8, 21/3.4, 24/2, 28/2.8, 35's, various 50's, 58/2, 85/2, the 90/2.8 macro, the 100/2.8, a couple 135's, 180/5.5 or 200/5.6, 240/4.5, 500/8. I'm trying to keep the total to around twenty or so lenses. And tubes. And filters. And both the K20D and ZX-M bodies. And a couple MF folders. And some P&S digicams. No, I won't carry everything all at once, and not far. I hope.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help with Lenses choice for trip to Maine	winglik	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-21-2009 08:02 PM
Heads Up for anyone who is feeling rich and wants some choice lenses.	mikengstrom	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-02-2009 07:59 AM
Tough choice on so many great lenses.	autumnsbliss	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-24-2008 06:13 AM
So, how hard is it to use Manual lenses?	cputeq	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	04-18-2008 03:27 PM
macro choice	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-18-2008 06:36 PM

06-01-2010, 11:41 AM	#16
HeG Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 47 Original Poster	Quote: I don't use a tripod for my shots Okey, then you have to be very steady on your hand or I don´t get it how you can get so good pictures without tripod. Or does it matter what kind of extension tubes you have? Quote: I believe he was referring to the physical size of the lenses themselves - some of those are bigger than others, and that might matter to you. This issue is sooo hard to decide anything about, since I like the weight of the pentax and at the same time I like the tamron´s price (can by something plus the macro... ) Okey, if I buy pentax it would be the WR-version. I do want to get the best macro (regardless of price) since I don´t have so much money I could go and by the other one if I´m not satisfied. And since I haven´t read any so much differences between the lenses (that I understand). One other thing I´m wondering about is if it´s possible with any macro lens also take pictures underneath things, for example a flower? Last edited by HeG; 06-01-2010 at 12:13 PM.

06-01-2010, 01:42 PM	#17
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	You'll always see me in defense of the sigma 105mm in threads like this. Its just an incredible lens. I've got 24 images in PPG (see signature) using the lens. Check out my flickr (also in my signiture) to see more images. If your to lazy for that here's a taste: I've used the tamron 90mm and did not like the build/feal of it. YMMV

06-01-2010, 01:42 PM	#18
darrenleow Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 541	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella As I said above, in order for a shorter focal length length to provide the same magnification as a longer focal length one, it has to allow you to focus from closer. But we're talking about small differences here, and again, it just won't matter as far as how much detail you can get - 1:1 magnification is 1:1 magnification, regardless of whether it's done with a 90mm lens from 29cm away of with a 100mm lens from 30cm away. Exactly the same amount of the flower will fit in the frame either way: 1 inch, as I said previously, because 1:1 magnification always means 1 inch of the subject fits in the frame when using a camera with a sensor that is 1 inch wide. So if you want to see how much that is with the flowers in your garden, just take a ruler with you. 1:1 magnification means the picture will consist of 1 inch worth of flower - it's as simple as that. 1 inch is just a small part of larger flower like an iris, but it's a whole bunch of blossoms for smaller flowers like lilacs, for instance. Agreed, but the perspective from both photos will be quite different, the shorter macro lens will include more of the background while the longer macro lens will throw the background into a smooth blurred backdrop. Another consideration when choosing an insect-shooting macro lens, apart from working distance.

06-01-2010, 06:09 PM	#19
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by HeG I haven´t read any so much differences between the lenses (that I understand). That's because those lenses are way more similar than different. You could flip a coin to decide and do as well as any other method. Quote: One other thing I´m wondering about is if it´s possible with any macro lens also take pictures underneath things, for example a flower? Interesting question. You'd need a lens that was physically small so you could fit it and the camera under the flower, and also that had a very short minimum focus distance. Seems like the DA35 would be way to go for this.

06-02-2010, 06:55 AM	#20
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Here's an example of the effect of focal length on Bokeh (same subject, same background, same f-stop, same magnification): BUT the working distance for the 90mm lens was 90/50 greater than that for the 50mm lens. BUT at the same magnification the 90mm lens was 90/50 times harder to hold steady. This is always the case: shorter lenses are easier to hand-hold, longer lenses show less well focused, more restricted background. Longer lenses don't scare the bugs, shorter lenses do. Longer lenses don't block the light, shorter lenses do. Longer lenses weigh more. Dave in Iowa

06-02-2010, 07:11 AM	#21
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	just pick one,they are all good...

06-02-2010, 09:14 AM	#22
jmbradd Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 325	Originally posted by enoeske I use an old smc 50mm f/1.4 with 50mm of extension tubes which gives me 1:1 magnification. Sometimes I don't use all 50mm, and get less than 1:1 depending on if I need it for my subject. If you are patient, you can get insect shots but you have to be really close (as in 1-2 inches). Flowers don't care how close you are. Best of all, the lens + extension tubes were only around $100 total from KEH.com. Great results for cheap. Just throwing this out there as an option. If you want to try out macro shooting, this might be a route to try. You can still go all out and get a dedicated macro lens later if its the right kind of photography for you. I am happy with my results and don't really see the need for a more expensive lens. The links are higher res 1600px for more detail Pink flower with dew Wasp Dandelion in B&W Fly in B&W Green Stink Bug Dew Drops on Leaf +1 for this route. I have a reversing ring and focus is a pain. You think manual focus is hard? Try focusing by swaying =) I'm buying a macro lens too (sigma 70mm f/2.8 is more for me I think) but i've earned it in my mind

06-02-2010, 12:47 PM	#23
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by jmbradd +1 for this route. I have a reversing ring and focus is a pain. You think manual focus is hard? Try focusing by swaying =) I'm buying a macro lens too (sigma 70mm f/2.8 is more for me I think) but i've earned it in my mind Every macro shooter I've ever talked to sets the magnification and moves back and forth to focus, me included.

06-03-2010, 01:12 PM	#24
henryp B&H Photo Representative Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: New York, NY Posts: 491	Originally posted by HeG I have noticed I do like bokeh (at least under f3.5) I don't want to split hairs on this but all lenses have bokeh. Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas. Some lenses have good bokeh and some bad, but they all have it. Originally posted by imtheguy I have another suggestion; order the one you THINK you want today from B&H and if it does not meet expectations, return it for no charge and get the next lens in line. Its cheaper than renting one to test it out. Case in point, I was sure the Sigma 105mm macro was the one I wanted but returned it to B&H after 10 days for the Tamron 90mm and couldn't be happier. B&H makes returns quite easy by emailing you a UPS shipping label. Thank you. We appreciate your suggesting ordering from us.

06-03-2010, 01:31 PM	#25
Jools Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: SW Wisconsin by way of Venezuela Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,398	Originally posted by Digitalis just pick one,they are all good... Yeah I agree just pick one. It'll be a learning session. BTW, Digitalis love that pix. Just grossed my wife out.

06-03-2010, 01:56 PM	#26
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	"Swaying" plus catch-in-focus is a tried and true macro shooter method. I prefer the longer macro lenses myself.

06-04-2010, 12:44 AM	#27
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Jools Digitalis love that pix. Just grossed my wife out. I hate it how people think that life and death are only experienced by humans and little furry animals...we're all part of a chain, I was just documenting it.

06-04-2010, 03:47 PM	#28
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'll leave soon on a multi-month tent-camping trip, and I'm hauling (too) many lenses along. Too much macro, even. How much? An old M42 Macro-Takumar 50/4 just arrived yesterday; it goes, along with the M42 Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro. And M42 Meyer Triopan 100/2.8 and Hanimar 135/3.5 with a thread reversal ring to stack Takumar 55/1.8 and 35/3.5 and 28/2.8 lenses for great magnification. And an M39 Industar-50/3.5 on tubes. And some mount reversal rings, just in case. And a Raynox DCR-250. And some diopter lenses. And what did those cost? In total, rather less than a single AF macro lens.

06-05-2010, 04:30 AM	#29
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by RioRico I'll leave soon on a multi-month tent-camping trip, and I'm hauling (too) many lenses along. Too much macro, even. How much? An old M42 Macro-Takumar 50/4 just arrived yesterday; it goes, along with the M42 Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro. And M42 Meyer Triopan 100/2.8 and Hanimar 135/3.5 with a thread reversal ring to stack Takumar 55/1.8 and 35/3.5 and 28/2.8 lenses for great magnification. And an M39 Industar-50/3.5 on tubes. And some mount reversal rings, just in case. And a Raynox DCR-250. And some diopter lenses. And what did those cost? In total, rather less than a single AF macro lens. Wow! I hope you needn't carry all those lenses far!

06-05-2010, 04:51 AM	#30
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by newarts Wow! I hope you needn't carry all those lenses far! What? Those are just the start. I've got my usual AF zooms: DA10-17, DA18-55 (with filters) DA18-250, FA100-300, Lil'Bigma 170-500. Then various primes (working up): 16/2.8, 21/3.4, 24/2, 28/2.8, 35's, various 50's, 58/2, 85/2, the 90/2.8 macro, the 100/2.8, a couple 135's, 180/5.5 or 200/5.6, 240/4.5, 500/8. I'm trying to keep the total to around twenty or so lenses. And tubes. And filters. And both the K20D and ZX-M bodies. And a couple MF folders. And some P&S digicams. No, I won't carry everything all at once, and not far. I hope.