What macro lens to get?

andyph666 · 10-01-2011, 01:52 PM

I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks.

**boriscleto** · 10-01-2011, 02:21 PM

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html

I'm sure the DA 35 limited is a very nice lens, but you don't want to buy it as a macro.

andyph666 · 10-01-2011, 02:36 PM

So would you choose the d fa 100 instead?

**boriscleto** · 10-01-2011, 03:56 PM

If I was going to get an AF macro, I would be looking at the Tamron 90mm for about half the price of the D FA unless you really need the WR. Since you already have the 50-135 you can get your feet wet with a Raynox adapter for a fraction of the cost of a macro lens.

andyph666 · 10-01-2011, 05:23 PM

Hey there. I read some reviews on your suggestion. I will get the tamron 90 mm then. Thanks for the help. What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers.

**Just1MoreDave** · 10-01-2011, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by andyph666

I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks.

The big difference in using these two is "working distance": how close you are to the subject. They can both reproduce a subject life-size, but you have to get really close for the 35mm, farther away for the 100mm or 90mm as suggested. That makes the DA 35mm f2.8 Limited more of a small, sharp normal lens with macro available, but not ideal for snakes.

Other than working distance and magnification, dedicated macro lenses are very well-corrected, so when the focal length and speed are within a usable range, you can use them for other subjects. So you can choose a focal length where you might also use it for portraits or a normal lens or short telephoto or something else.

RioRico · 10-01-2011, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by andyph666

What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers.

A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration.

sterretje · 10-01-2011, 10:42 PM

For macro only, you don't need an AF lens. Often manual focus is preferred. Reason why I have an AF macro is that I also use it as a (light) tele.

newarts · 10-02-2011, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration.

The ~$60 Raynox 250 would be right to get a magnification of 1:1 with your 50-135.. It would take excellent macros of natural subjects like bugs & flowers (that's because it is soft on the edges which doesn't matter with macros of 3D subjects.).

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

I have good macro lenses but mostly carry just a raynox in my travel kit in case a macro opportunity arises.

robyn · 11-07-2011, 05:41 PM

I've been pondering the same question, but for newborn photography. I've been doing newborn photography for nearly 3 years, but with macro attachments or my 35mm FA limited. I want more. I want the macro. I found this thread when trying to choose between the 100m and 35mm macro, myself.

I need to be close to baby, but I know the 100mm macro can get me closer than a standard 100mm. I've worked with my dad's 100mm macro/Nikor.

So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting?

Thanks- been wrestling with this decision for months, and want to decide in this business year- preferred sooner rather than later-

robyn · 11-07-2011, 05:42 PM

I have the 50-135mm, too, and even with attachments, it's not what I want.

Thanks =)

dh4412 · 11-07-2011, 05:55 PM

maybe this has been answered already, but does anyone like the manual focusing ring on either the 100wr or the da 35 2.8?

robyn · 11-07-2011, 05:59 PM

the manual focusing ring on the 35mm DA 2.8 (not macro) is fine, easy. i have that one. I do not have the macro version.

robyn · 11-07-2011, 06:21 PM

oh shoot- sorry- I always forget the 35mm is a 2.4 not 2.8. Sorry for confusion. I've been shooting with it a year, and still can't remember that =) Love that lens (minus purple fringing).

I am wondering about the 2.8 macro-

**Just1MoreDave** · 11-07-2011, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by robyn

So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting?

Both 1:1 macros can produce the same maximum magnification, but I vaguely recall that there is a difference in depth of field when you compare two 1:1 shots at the same settings. My guess is that a shorter focal length would have more DOF if all other settings are equal, as a tradeoff for its shorter working distance. If that's true, for natural-light shots you'd want to be at wide apertures, and more DOF would be good. I tried to look this up but got too much other information.

Otherwise, maybe extra working distance and WR would be useful around babies.

10-01-2011, 01:52 PM	#1
andyph666 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 8	What macro lens to get? I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks.

11-07-2011, 05:41 PM	#10
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	But what about for babies? I've been pondering the same question, but for newborn photography. I've been doing newborn photography for nearly 3 years, but with macro attachments or my 35mm FA limited. I want more. I want the macro. I found this thread when trying to choose between the 100m and 35mm macro, myself. I need to be close to baby, but I know the 100mm macro can get me closer than a standard 100mm. I've worked with my dad's 100mm macro/Nikor. So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting? Thanks- been wrestling with this decision for months, and want to decide in this business year- preferred sooner rather than later-

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro and Sigma 180mm F/3.5 EX DG IF APO Macro Lens	LenWick	Sold Items	9	06-16-2010 11:09 AM
Streets My first Macro lens, the DFA 100mm Macro WR. Here are my 1st few shots with it!	aaronius	Post Your Photos!	4	04-30-2010 07:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma DL Macro Super 70-300mm f/4-5.6 1:2 Macro Lens, Worldwide Ship!	wallyb	Sold Items	10	12-16-2009 10:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 90mm F2.5 AT-X Macro Lens with 1:1 Extender. A Legendary Macro Lens. Bo	frank	Sold Items	12	05-29-2009 05:57 PM
50mm macro lens vs 100mm macro lens. What is your experience?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	10-28-2007 06:39 PM

10-01-2011, 02:21 PM	#2
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html I'm sure the DA 35 limited is a very nice lens, but you don't want to buy it as a macro.

10-01-2011, 02:36 PM	#3
andyph666 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 8 Original Poster	So would you choose the d fa 100 instead?

10-01-2011, 03:56 PM	#4
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	If I was going to get an AF macro, I would be looking at the Tamron 90mm for about half the price of the D FA unless you really need the WR. Since you already have the 50-135 you can get your feet wet with a Raynox adapter for a fraction of the cost of a macro lens.

10-01-2011, 05:23 PM	#5
andyph666 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 8 Original Poster	Hey there. I read some reviews on your suggestion. I will get the tamron 90 mm then. Thanks for the help. What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers.

10-01-2011, 05:52 PM	#6
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by andyph666 I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks. The big difference in using these two is "working distance": how close you are to the subject. They can both reproduce a subject life-size, but you have to get really close for the 35mm, farther away for the 100mm or 90mm as suggested. That makes the DA 35mm f2.8 Limited more of a small, sharp normal lens with macro available, but not ideal for snakes. Other than working distance and magnification, dedicated macro lenses are very well-corrected, so when the focal length and speed are within a usable range, you can use them for other subjects. So you can choose a focal length where you might also use it for portraits or a normal lens or short telephoto or something else.

10-01-2011, 08:42 PM	#7
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by andyph666 What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers. A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration.

10-01-2011, 10:42 PM	#8
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	For macro only, you don't need an AF lens. Often manual focus is preferred. Reason why I have an AF macro is that I also use it as a (light) tele.

10-02-2011, 07:07 AM	#9
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by RioRico A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration. The ~$60 Raynox 250 would be right to get a magnification of 1:1 with your 50-135.. It would take excellent macros of natural subjects like bugs & flowers (that's because it is soft on the edges which doesn't matter with macros of 3D subjects.). See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html for example photos... I have good macro lenses but mostly carry just a raynox in my travel kit in case a macro opportunity arises.

11-07-2011, 05:42 PM	#11
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	I have the 50-135mm, too, and even with attachments, it's not what I want. Thanks =)

11-07-2011, 05:55 PM	#12
dh4412 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 248	maybe this has been answered already, but does anyone like the manual focusing ring on either the 100wr or the da 35 2.8?

11-07-2011, 05:59 PM	#13
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	the manual focusing ring on the 35mm DA 2.8 (not macro) is fine, easy. i have that one. I do not have the macro version.

11-07-2011, 06:21 PM	#14
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	oh shoot- sorry- I always forget the 35mm is a 2.4 not 2.8. Sorry for confusion. I've been shooting with it a year, and still can't remember that =) Love that lens (minus purple fringing). I am wondering about the 2.8 macro-

11-07-2011, 07:04 PM	#15
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by robyn So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting? Both 1:1 macros can produce the same maximum magnification, but I vaguely recall that there is a difference in depth of field when you compare two 1:1 shots at the same settings. My guess is that a shorter focal length would have more DOF if all other settings are equal, as a tradeoff for its shorter working distance. If that's true, for natural-light shots you'd want to be at wide apertures, and more DOF would be good. I tried to look this up but got too much other information. Otherwise, maybe extra working distance and WR would be useful around babies.