K-x 18-55mm kit lens macro ability

stanic · 08-30-2010, 05:17 AM

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

yeatzee · 08-30-2010, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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."
.
.
.

JeffJS · 08-30-2010, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

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.

audiobomber · 08-30-2010, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by JeffJS

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.

JeffJS · 08-30-2010, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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.

egordon99 · 08-30-2010, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Xlusionist

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)

hcarvalhoalves · 08-30-2010, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by JeffJS

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.

RioRico · 08-30-2010, 08:39 AM

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.

hcarvalhoalves · 08-30-2010, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Lensmakers will label anything as 'macro' because there's no legal restriction and it uses less ink than "close focus". Whatever.

LOL. Quite accurate

JeffJS · 08-30-2010, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

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....

hcarvalhoalves · 08-30-2010, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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.

hcarvalhoalves · 08-30-2010, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

Ok. Whatever you say....

Hehe... well, it's not!

Marc Sabatella · 08-30-2010, 09:39 PM

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.

JoepLX3 · 09-02-2010, 05:50 AM

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)

agsy · 09-02-2010, 06:06 AM

Is this considered a macro shot?

09-02-2010, 06:06 AM	#30
agsy Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 551	Trying a macro shot Is this considered a macro shot? Attached Images

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

08-30-2010, 05:17 AM	#16
stanic Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Zakopane Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	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
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by audiobomber 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
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves 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
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by JeffJS 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
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by audiobomber 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
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by Xlusionist 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
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by JeffJS 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
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	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
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by RioRico 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
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves 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
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by audiobomber 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
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by JeffJS Ok. Whatever you say.... Hehe... well, it's not!

08-30-2010, 09:39 PM	#28
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	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
JoepLX3 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 518	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)