[llwil2003]

I purchased the Pentax K2000 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DA L and 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED Lenses.

I also own the fixed lens camera-Nikon P90 with a 24x optical wide-angle (35mm equivalent focal length: 26-624mm) Zoom-Nikkor ED glass lens.

What I need to know is what other lenses I will need to do macro and to do landscape photography?

I am really a newbie since it seemed like the Nikon P90 camera did it all but my Photography teacher said otherwise.

My question is do I need to purchase any additional lens to get complete macro to landscape telephoto coverage with my new Pentax K2000?

I am really confused.
Thanks in advance!

[lowspark86]

I purchased the Pentax K2000 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DA L and 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED Lenses.

What I need to know is what other lenses I will need to do macro and to do landscape photography?

Right now you most likely don't need any more lenses. The two lenses you have cover a decent amount of the focal length spectrum. Until you know what other capabilities you need from your lens, I would recommend learning what you like to shoot with your camera. If you figure out something that you need a shorter or longer focal length for, then you'll know what to buy or you will be able to ask a more specific question to get suggestions.

Have you tried utilizing the close minimum focus distance of your 18-55? Some find that it is sufficient for them to use photographing flowers and such. A cheap "upgrade" would be purchasing a close up lens that fits on the front of the lenses you already own. The Raynox DCR 150 is about $45us and would work well with the 50-200mm. It would allow you to get close focus at a long focal length for a pretty good price. Its a good step to take before figuring out which macro lens you may want or need, or if you even enjoy shooting macro enough to purchase a dedicated lens.

[RioRico]

Your 18-55 kit lens is fine for landscapes, and for closeups to 1:3x magnification.

For macro work, there are less expensive options than buying a 'dedicated' macro lens (which is really a close-focusing general purpose lens). A Raynox DCR-150 or -250 mounted on your kit lens will give splendid close results. Because serious macro work requires steadiness and good lighting, an inexpensive manual macro lens with tripod and flash may do all you need around 1:1x magnification. To capture the reflections in an ant's eye, use a different setup: a cheap 135mm manual prime, a thread-reversal ring, and stacked cheap wider primes.

Decision points: A 'macro' lens, whether manual or auto, is flexible and easy. A Raynox adapter is flexible, easy, and cheap. A stacked-lens setup is powerful and pretty cheap, takes a bit more effort, and really pays off in results.

[Marc Sabatella]

What I need to know is what other lenses I will need to do macro and to do landscape photography?

For landscape, you're pretty well set. For macro, if the 18-55 doesn't get close enough for you, then you need one of the macro lens or aids suggested by others, such as the Raynox 150 to use with your 50-200 (cheapest/easiest solution that gives good results).

I am really a newbie since it seemed like the Nikon P90 camera did it all but my Photography teacher said otherwise.

Try shooting it without flash in a dark environment and see what you think.

My question is do I need to purchase any additional lens to get complete macro to landscape telephoto coverage with my new Pentax K2000?

I am really confused.

Yes, the way you worded that question makes this clear - there is confusion embedded in your use of the terms. I'd recommend visiting the library or bookstore to get a basic book on photography to help you understand what you need for shooting macro versus telephoto versus landscape. you need to learn what "focal length" is and how it relate to shooting landscape or telephoto, and you need to learn what makes a lens a macro lens and how this does *not* really have anything to do with focal length. You also need to learn what *other* considerations exist besides focal length and macro capability (eg, maximum aperture, which relevant for low light shooting, obtaining shallow DOF, and other concerns). Getting a Raynox will help with the macro, but you still will be lacking in the maximum aperture department. Again, any book on photography will explain these terms and their importance. Or just sit tight and hope your photography teacher will eventually cover it all.

[traderdrew]

Raynox DCR-150 or -250

I didn't know about this. I just looked up their site on the net. I wonder if there is any light loss when it is mounted on a lens???

[RioRico]

Raynox DCR-150 or -250

I didn't know about this. I just looked up their site on the net. I wonder if there is any light loss when it is mounted on a lens???

Damn good question. I just did a simple test: put a manual 24/2 lens on K20D; set the camera on corner of laptop keyboard pointing at screen; half-press the shutter to meter. The top LED display flicks between 1/90 and 1/125 sec. Now mount the DCR-250 on the lens, put camera in exact same place, repeat. The display flicks between 1/125 and 1/180 sec.

So the Raynox adapter actually focuses more light to the center-weighted sensor.

Ah, maybe the center-weighed metering is being tricked. So I repeat the test but use a DA18-55 kit lens with matrix metering, FL=18mm, Av=f/3.5, MF and close-focus. With lens alone, the display flicks between 1/30 and 1/45 sec. With the DCR-250 in place, it's solidly at 1/45.

The answer: no light loss, maybe ~1/2 stop light gain. It's a miracle!! Que milagro!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT -- A general comment on lenses etc:

Shoot what you have, see what you can do with your two (slow) zooms, then think about what you want to do that you can't do with them. When I asked myself what I wanted that my good P&S couldn't do, the answers were: ultrawide, ultralong, and low light -- and Pentax had the lenses I could afford. So I bought basic autofocus (AF) lenses to cover those desires. Since then (a couple years ago) I have acquired (too man) other lenses, almost all of them manual rather than AF -- because they cost much less. Fast (low-light) lenses with superb optics can be found on eBay for a pittance, even with the recent spike in prices of old Pentax glass.

So, keep studying. Learn the basics of exposure and focus and composition, the technicalities of lens speed (aperture) and focal length and depth-of-field (DOF), of shutter speed and color balance. Shoot constantly -- it's free, you don't have to pay for film! Read up on photography, especially material showing images you like, that shows how those images were made. Read discussions here on lenses and techniques. When you feel you MUST buy more lenses, read the Lens Review database here, and don't be afraid to ask questions. We're just full of answers here. Have fun!

[interested_observer]

You essentially have everything you really need. Go out and take pictures, by doing so you will learn, pretty quickly. You don't have to fill a roll of film and take it in for developing waiting a week for the prints. The film is free and you can take the SD card to your PC and get instant results back, seeing immediately what you might have done right and wrong. You will get a lot that you do not like - but these are learning experiences. Figure out what you did wrong, then go back out and try it again.

Try one thing at a time and improve on it, like holding the camera still and focusing. Try one mode a day - reading up on it the night before. Go through all the modes, you have nothing to loose and experience to gain - and it costs you very little, just some time.

Concentrate on one lens at a time, rather than a lot of jumping back and forth.

Also, if the shot is too wide for the lens, try taking multiple panels and then stitching them into a panaroma on your PC (just down load the software from the web - there are quite a few very good utilities.

Take some time exposures in the evening and at night. You might need a tripod. If so look for a $10 special from Craigslist to start out. That way if you feel you really need a better one you will understand the features that really matter to you.

You will take a lot of bad pictures along the way - just delete them after looking at them and figuring out what you did wrong. As time goes by, your keeper rate will increase, along with your skill. Then something else will happen - you will start to define what you are interested in, and you will be able to determine where you want to go from there, and what additional equipment may be needed. The kit lenses give you all the basics.

enjoy!!

[Marc Sabatella]

Damn good question. I just did a simple test: put a manual 24/2 lens on K20D; set the camera on corner of laptop keyboard pointing at screen; half-press the shutter to meter. The top LED display flicks between 1/90 and 1/125 sec. Now mount the DCR-250 on the lens, put camera in exact same place, repeat. The display flicks between 1/125 and 1/180 sec.

Does that lens focus close enough that your subject was in focus both with an without the Raynox? I'd expect differences in focus (and the Raynox also changes the focal length somewhat, thus altering FOV and thus altering what the sensor sees) to be the source of any discrepancy.

[llwil2003]

I found this on ebay but it does not mention the K2000 in the listing. Does anyone know if this works on the Pentax K2000? Thanks Linda

Ebay listing:

Raynox DCR-250 Macro for Pentax K10D K110D K100D Super

[sterretje]

The Raynox fits on the lens, not on the camera. So a camera reference on ebay does not make sense.

See e.g. DCR-250 Super Macro conversion lens for D-SLR camera for some specs. It fits on lenses with a filter diameter ranging from 52mm to 67mm. The 18-55 AL II has a filter diameter of 52mm as has the 55-200; those specs are taken from pentaximaging.com; I don't expect them to differ for your lenses but just check.

I don't think that anybody mentioned it but your Pentax camera has a crop factor of 1.5x. So your 18mm gives the FOV equivalent of 27mm (which is close to your Nikon). The 200mm translates to 300mm which is about half of the Nikon. So for serious tele work you might need an additional lens in future. But chances are that you will never miss that extra reach in the tele area.

[RioRico]

Does that lens focus close enough that your subject was in focus both with an without the Raynox? I'd expect differences in focus (and the Raynox also changes the focal length somewhat, thus altering FOV and thus altering what the sensor sees) to be the source of any discrepancy.

Yes, both lenses focus close. I aimed them both at the same bright screen filled with the same REPLY TO THREAD window. But yes, the altered FOV could account for the different meterings. I'll try a more rigorous test when I get a chance.

The Raynox fits on the lens, not on the camera. So a camera reference on ebay does not make sense... It fits on lenses with a filter diameter ranging from 52mm to 67mm.

I can just barely manage to mount (and unmount) the Raynox universal clip on 49mm front threads, but I suppose a 49-52 stepup ring would be advisable.

[Rondec]

The others are right. You have a decent basic set up. Now the goal is to use it and figure out what things you personally might benefit from. The two things that you may want down the road would be faster glass (that is glass with a larger aperture) for shooting in lower light and longer glass.

There are many threads on macro shooting. There are several ways to shoot macros. The cheapest ways are either with the Raynox or getting an old manual focus lens and some extension tubes.

Don't get caught up in chasing equipment. Focus instead on capturing photos and if you come to place where you aren't getting the photos you want, then look at equipment choices that would help you get those images better. And most of all, have fun!

[Marc Sabatella]

Although the Raynox 250 will indeed mount to the lenses you own, I'd read up more on the different Raynox adapters before jumping on that 250. Because of it's shorter working distance, it's going to be much harder to use than the 150, and the 150 on the 50-200 already provides more than enough magnification for most purposes (more than virtually any dedicated macro lens).

[traderdrew]

RioRico: The answer: no light loss, maybe ~1/2 stop light gain. It's a miracle!! Que milagro!

Wow! That makes piques my curiosity. The only other thing that is supposed to give you an f stop gain is the Singh-Ray color filter. It is an expensive filter but I am thinking of getting one. I may use it on the Pentax F/4 300mm lens.

So far, I like the colors my K-7 is giving me on photos of various flowers.