Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-30-2010, 05:17 AM   #16
Veteran Member
stanic's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: PB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 380
these are all cropped, showing the 18-55 kit lens ability....as long you dont have money for macro lens, the kit lens is quite okay
stanic's Album: shroomy - PentaxForums.com

08-30-2010, 06:36 AM   #17
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Sigma and Tamron don't agree. They label any close focus lens a macro. The 18-55 is a close focus lens, but if it was a Tamron or Sigma instead of Pentax, it would be called an 18-55 Macro.

The Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL (IF) for example, is only 1:3.6. The Tamron label for the same lens, is AF18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro.
So?

Its just a way for them to make more money, gimmicking people into thinking that it does "macro."
.
.
.
08-30-2010, 06:59 AM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
The picture is not cropped. You can check the EXIF.

To confirm the information, I took this one now:


IMGP0082 por hcarvalhoalves, no Flickr

Went up to 55mm and got the closest possible with a mini-tripod before the focus indicator started complaining, and measured with a ruler. From the *lenses* to the keyboard, it was 11cm. So it's about what I said: you are able to focus with the kit lenses on 55mm at around 10cm, which gives you some decent macro ability. Of course, if you shoot a lot macros you're better off with dedicated 1:2 or 1:1 lenses. The idea of the kit lenses is giving enough flexibility to play with the camera out of the box, not being good at everything, so there are obvious compromises.
And there is nothing in focus in your keyboard shot. It's all well and good to say you can get close with the 18-55 kit lens but it still, is not a macro lens.

I'm not in this discussion to tell anyone to run out and buy an expensive macro lens. Although I do love spending other people's money. If you want to Do macro, there are very usable options. Take a look at yeatzee's photos, the cobbled macro master (IMO), to see what I mean.

08-30-2010, 07:56 AM   #19
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,677
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
And there is nothing in focus in your keyboard shot. It's all well and good to say you can get close with the 18-55 kit lens but it still, is not a macro lens.
The L and M are in focus, it's just that depth of field is very shallow, there looks to be a little blur from shake and the photo is underexposed. Hcarvalhoalves, the ideal way to achieve closest focus is to set the focus to manual and move the camera back and forth until what you want is in perfect focus.

JeffJS, the 18-55 is not a macro lens as far as you're concerned. I wouldn't call it a macro lens either, but it would be called a macro lens if it were branded Tamron or Sigma. A lot of people consider photos of flower heads to be macros, and the 18-55 is highly capable of capturing those. An argument about the definition of "macro" is rather pointless. I'd like to see the definition of a macro lens reserved for lenses that do 1:1, but that's just my opinion, it doesn't reflect reality. Lots of people think it should be 1:2, but that's just an opinion too, probably because the older Pentax macros were only 1:2. The current Pentax macro lenses are all 1:1. The difference between 1:3 and 1:2 is meh, no big deal. The difference between 1:1 and 1:2 is a much bigger deal.

In the end, it's about how much magnification you achieve, and how to compare. Saying a compact camera can focus at 6 cm doesn't say anything about its suitability for macro or its magnification. Most compacts use digital zoom for super macro, which is just in-camera cropping. I believe the K-x and 18-55mm can achieve higher quality macros than the compact, but the OP is in the best position to demonstrate. If he wants to shoot flowers, the kit lens is fine. If he wants to fill the frame with an insect, he'll need to look at another solution.

08-30-2010, 08:27 AM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The L and M are in focus, it's just that depth of field is very shallow, there looks to be a little blur from shake and the photo is underexposed.
Sorry but on my screen, they are not. His original Rose photo is in focus however. If it's shake, fine, but if he's trying to demo the lens capability, that photo does nothing to prove the point.

08-30-2010, 08:27 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
QuoteOriginally posted by Xlusionist Quote
i have to stay at the minimum focus distance with k-x.

That's why it's the "minimum" focus distance.

If you could focus closer, it wouldn't be the minimum.

If you want to focus closer, you buy a lens that focuses closer (and has a shorter MFD)
08-30-2010, 08:36 AM   #22
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
And there is nothing in focus in your keyboard shot. It's all well and good to say you can get close with the 18-55 kit lens but it still, is not a macro lens.
I shot this at f/6.7 under low light, and I'm very diagonal compared to the keyboard surface, so of course the DOF is thin. The "L" line is well focused though.

Anyway, I'm just trying to help the OP to figure if it's okay for him to take "macros" with the kit lenses by giving examples of how far it goes, instead of cheap talk on what constitutes macro or not, as I don't believe there's a consensus on this.

Last edited by hcarvalhoalves; 08-30-2010 at 08:52 AM.
08-30-2010, 08:39 AM   #23
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
No, the 18-55 ain't a macro lens, although I outlined ways it can be used for macro shooting, 1:2 magnification and greater. I have a 28mm prime labeled as 'macro' although it only reaches 1:37. Those Tamrons and Sigmas ain't macros. "Macro zooms" mostly ain't macros (except for my Schneider Betavaron enlarger zoom, but that's another story). I have 500mm and 1000mm mirrors labeled 'macro' because their close-focus reaches 1.5m! Lensmakers will label anything as 'macro' because there's no legal restriction and it uses less ink than "close focus". Whatever.

08-30-2010, 08:51 AM   #24
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Lensmakers will label anything as 'macro' because there's no legal restriction and it uses less ink than "close focus". Whatever.
LOL. Quite accurate
08-30-2010, 12:48 PM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
I shot this at f/6.7 under low light, and I'm very diagonal compared to the keyboard surface, so of course the DOF is thin. The "L" line is well focused though.
Ok. Whatever you say....

08-30-2010, 05:35 PM   #26
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The L and M are in focus, it's just that depth of field is very shallow, there looks to be a little blur from shake and the photo is underexposed. Hcarvalhoalves, the ideal way to achieve closest focus is to set the focus to manual and move the camera back and forth until what you want is in perfect focus.
Yep, I shot in manual and adjusted focus as close as possible while keeping focus indicator on. AF was unable to find it at that distance, I guess because the composition lacked light / contrast.

Still, it's not sharp, I might have shaken a bit and/or the lens is a little too soft at that aperture and length.
08-30-2010, 05:36 PM   #27
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
Ok. Whatever you say....

Hehe... well, it's not!
08-30-2010, 09:39 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
The "L" might not be in perfect focus, but it's still pretty obvious that the focus plane is somewhere *near* there. The more distant keys are clearly *more* out of focus than the L, as is the ruler. I assume the discrepancy in minimum focus distances is just a matter of whether of whether you measure to the front of the lens, to the sensor, or to somewhere else.
09-02-2010, 05:50 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
You can't get focus confirmed on the L because of the distance being to close. Keys in the back and in the front suffer from more defocus, but that doesn't make the L in focus. To do that you leave the lens at that focus setting and have to move your camera back or the keyboard away... (until you get the confirmation, or for optimal focus move it even a little further, the "sweet spot" is between the original and when camera with unchanged focus on the lens is again out of focus)
09-02-2010, 06:06 AM   #30
Veteran Member
agsy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 545
Trying a macro shot

Is this considered a macro shot?
Attached Images
 
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!
18-55mm, 18-55mm kit lens, ability, camera, k-x, kit, lens, macro, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k-x lens , kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL , what 50mm f1.4 can do over kit lens? crossing Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 01-15-2010 03:23 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR rustynail925 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-08-2010 02:06 PM
18-55mm WR compared to the original 18-55mm kit lens HogRider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-26-2009 12:01 PM
Macro-ability - just some test shots... TrevorC Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-08-2009 07:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 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