[omegatricky]

New to the forum. I was interested in getting a macro lens. I have a K2000. I don't want to have to take out a loan. Any ideas?

[boriscleto]

What lenses do you already have?

The easiest way to get decent macro on a budget is a Raynox diopter.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/143202-macro-any-means-necessary-club.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/129563-%2Amacro%2A-lens-club.html

I use the Sigma A 50mm f/2.8 macro. ~$100.

Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

[newarts]

What lenses do you already have?

The easiest way to get decent macro on a budget is a Raynox diopter.]....

I agree. For someone who has just the 18-55mm kit lens a highly cost effective thing to get is a DA (L) 55-300mm and a Raynox DCR 150 (total cost about $250-275).

This combination of lenses covers a huge range of high image quality, hand-held photographic possibilities.

The total range is from a good, practical wide angle through as close a macro as can be hand-held to the longest distance that can be hand-held for most people; all with two lenses and a clip-on attachment that will easily fit in one small bag.

I have quite a few lenses but the above are what I carry most of the time.

[rparmar]

The Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro is small and light. Though plastic through and through it produces some great images. The MF version is best and shouldn't run much money.

[epqwerty]

The cheapest way would be extension tubes. However, the other common route is the raynox adapter. Either the 150 or the 250. I personally have the 250 it is good but when using 300mm focal length it becomes way too tricky.

[Marc Sabatella]

And the Raynox is less expensive than a set of extension tubes that supports auto-aperture, which you'd need to go with the 18-55. If you got a $10 set of tubes, you'd need to spend another $30 on a manual lens to use with them, and now you're at the price of the Raynox.

[RioRico]

The cheapest way to do quality macro with the kit lens is to find a used teleconverter (TC) on eBay, one with the Pentax A-type mount contacts, and remove the glass. Such may cost around US$25. This deglassed TC now acts as an A-type extension tube, allowing you VERY close focus and maintaining aperture control, without degrading the image quality (IQ) at all. You will need to focus manually.

The easiest way to do pretty damn good macro with the kit lens is to use a Raynox adapter. Any adapter placed on a lens will degrade IQ somewhat, but with a Raynox, IQ loss is hardly noticeable. As mentioned, see THE RAYNOX CLUB for brilliant examples. Such an adapter retains complete automation of aperture and focus. And both a Raynox and an A-type extension maintain automatic control of flash.

[omegatricky]

Thank you all for the input. So I am looking at the DAL 55 300. These are such newbie questions. What are the differences between the DA and the DAL? Should I just go ahead and buy the DA?

[Marc Sabatella]

The "L" versions have a plastic mount, lack a hood, and lack quick shift (the ability to manually focus while in AF mode). They are just lighter/cheaper versions of the same lens.

[omegatricky]

So I should probably bite the bullet and invest in the DA version then? I mean if its only one hundred more dollars or so.

[RioRico]

So I should probably bite the bullet and invest in the DA version then? I mean if its only one hundred more dollars or so.

That is up to you. I haven't had either version so I can't comment directly. But although they have the same optics, my perception is that the L-version isn't liked as much, and may not keep resale value. I have noted many questions asking where a lens hood can be found -- and new stock hoods aren't cheap.

ON THE OTHER HAND... rubber screw-on hoods don't cost much. The optics ARE the same. I don't use quick-shift on any of my AF zooms, so its lack wouldn't bother me at all. Plastic mounts are very sturdy. If I wanted that lens and planned to keep it, I would don my cheap-bastard hat, and get the cheap one. I can buy MANY cheap manual lenses for the cost of the upgrade.

But hay, it's only money, eh?

[newarts]

If the choice is DAL + Raynox or just DA definitely get the DAL + Raynox 150. I have the DA & like the quick-shift but don't think I'd miss it all that much.

[omegatricky]

Alright all, I will probably by the DA and the raynox 150. I think those two will be in the budget. One more tiny question, what is everybody's thoughts on the 150 vs. the 250? I know I may be getting ahead of myself, but I just want to learn as much as I can.

[Bill_R]

Alright all, I will probably by the DA and the raynox 150. I think those two will be in the budget. One more tiny question, what is everybody's thoughts on the 150 vs. the 250? I know I may be getting ahead of myself, but I just want to learn as much as I can.

Check out the Raynox Macro Club thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html
I think you'll find the recommendation is to use the 150 with the DA 55-300 and the 250 with lower focal lengths such as the DA 18-55.
That thread has heaps of useful info but it's quite long and takes a while to go through - well worth it though, you'll be hooked before you start.

[newarts]

Check out the Raynox Macro Club thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html
I think you'll find the recommendation is to use the 150 with the DA 55-300 and the 250 with lower focal lengths such as the DA 18-55.
That thread has heaps of useful info but it's quite long and takes a while to go through - well worth it though, you'll be hooked before you start.

The Raynox 250 (125mm or 8 diopters) is stronger than the Raynox 150 (208mm or 4.8 diopters); the relative strength is 208/125 = 1.66x.

For the same sized image the 150 will be 1.66x further from the subject. That extra distance is important as it makes it easier to get light on the subject, manipulate the subject, and avoid scaring bugs away. But the 150 is enough weaker than the 250 that you need to put it onto a longer focal length lens to get the same magnification as the 250 on a shorter lens.

The formula for magnification when a close-up lens is put on a primary lens is:
mag = (primary.focal.length)/(close-up.focal.length)

The Raynox 150 on a 300mm lens has a magnification of about 1.5x which is about the limit of what most people can hand-hold.

I think the Raynox 150 is the best compromise if you have a 300mm lens; the Raynox 250 might be best if you intend to use a primary lens much shorter than 200mm.

I've never seen anybody say there's a difference in image quality between the two Raynox lenses.

The main reason I suggested the DA(L)55-300/Raynox DCR150 combination with your kit lens is that combination covers a huge range of hand-held photographic possibilities (including the maximum practical hand-held distance for telephotos of wildlife etc).

I think the Raynox DCR 250 coupled with the same two primary lenses would be less versatile in the field because of the 250's shorter working distance and your probable inability to hand hold it at higher magnifications.