[slip]

I just "rediscovered" my Pentax M50 F4 macro and can't believe how sharp it is. It is not true 1:1 but with an extension tube it is a cheap option (around 100 bucks average price of the lens) F4 is slow, but for most serious macro you would need a tripod and smaller apertures anyway
I picked up a slightly dinged but fully functioning one for 40 dollars

good luck with you purchase

thanks

randy

[DaveHolmes]

1:2 macro lenses are massively cheaper than 1:1's... Most you'll find very sharp and as someone earlier in the thread noted - for close-up work you're likely to be using smaller apertures anyhow...

The only time I use f2.8 on my D-FA100 (Samsung version - Also cheaper than the Pentax) is for portrait/people shots... DoF is too thin for close-up/macro work at 2.8 (for me anyway.) and I tend to be around f8/f11-ish

MF lenses are absolutely worth checking out... I turn the AF off for macro stuff as surprisingly (as I wear a -5 prescription) my eyes beat the AF in terms of accuracy went doing macro work...

[GibbyTheMole]

Couple of things:

1) I've never owned the 50-200, but I can tell you the 18-55 is a pretty good lens. I've gotten plenty of great, sharp shots with it. No, it's not a Limited prime, but I wouldn't kick it to the curb until you've tried it. It's true that there are substandard lenses out there. On the other hand, plenty of crappy photographers blame the gear for their own shortcomings. I frequently see bad reviews of long tele lenses with blurry example shots of flying birds. Then when I look at the exif data, it says they were shot at 400mm at 1/50th of a second or something. You gotta read between the lines & don't take every review as gospel truth.

2) I have this macro lens. It's a terrific performer, it's true 1:1, and it's cheap. Also available in an AF version with lower build quality but the same glass. Personally, I wouldn't want AF on a macro lens. I prefer the MF version. Just make sure you get the 1:1 diopter that comes with it if you buy it used.

Good luck,
Bobbo :-)

[DaveHolmes]

I frequently see bad reviews of long tele lenses with blurry example shots of flying birds. Then when I look at the exif data, it says they were shot at 400mm at 1/50th of a second or something. You gotta read between the lines & don't take every review as gospel truth.

+1 on that!

[G and T]

Yes I agree keep what you have and slowly change or improve your lenses.
For macro it doesn't have to be expensive, reverse adapters are cheap and will allow you to go greater than 1:1 and have the added bonus of using any lens regardless of its mount. Bellows are another option and can be found cheaply and also if they are M42 the lenses that can be mounted on them are almost endless. M42 bellows attach to K mount cameras better with cheap non-infinity focus adapters.
The K7 has a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Minolta MD mount attached.
The Bellows being M42 I have found great results with an old enlarger lens (as pictured)
Glenn