[stemked]

With the 50mm f1.7 you basically have several options. Each have their advantages.

1) Reverse the lens as you noted. It's cheap, doesn't cost you any light and will give you the greatest magnification, but you will need to move the camera which is best done with a macro slider.

2) Extension tubes. They can be pretty cheap, but not as cheap as the reverser, will give you more control on focusing, but you do loose light depending on how much extension you use.

3) Closeup filters (or Diopters). Easiest to use. However if you get cheap ones don't have high expectations. Expensive ones can cost as much as a lens.

4) Male to male adapters. If you have another lens with a 49mm filter you can reverse the 50mm on it.

5) Best option (drum roll please). Move up to a real macro; pick up a Tamron 90mm f2.5 adaptall lens for maybe $120 (with a K or better KA adapter, of course). It is a stunningly good lens. This was my wife's lens for years and she won may a flower photo contest with it.

I've done all of these ways. I would also recommend picking up an old copy of Shaw's "Closeups in Nature". It's an old film book, but it is really well written and will give you lots of excellent ideas about the options noted here.

[kernos]

I think that depending on what you want to do, a 50mm lens and extension tubes will work fine. The issue is working distance. For bugs, in general, you want to back off to not get them upset. But for flowers and really chill bugs, normal or even wide angle macro shots give a greater sense of 3D depth. Here's a shot of a very, very calm milkweed bug, on milkweed with a Mir 1b 37mm on extension tube to give you a sense of the type of depth you can achieve.

[RKKS08]

I saw and purchased a PKA vivitar lens

This lens offers a "macro" capability, as many zoom lenses do.
But generally real macro starts at 1:2, whereas most of the zooms offer only 1:4.
According to
The Vivitar Series 1 28-90 mm f/ 2.8-3.5 Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.
your lens offers 1:3.3, but unfortunately at 28mm, not at 90mm, so for insects you will have to go quite near.

I would describe 1:3.3 as "close focus", not real macro, but the crop factor of APS-C helps a bit.
I don't know about the IQ of this lens used as a "macro", maybe it is good.
Some zooms offer excellent IQ in the close focus range, some do not.

[Bruce Clark]

Have a look at this B+H tutorial video. I have found it to be highly informative both on the hardware options and techniques.

You Tube

You Tube

[LensBeginner]

2x Teleconverter with macro helicoid, like the Kenko MC7.
With something like 20€, provided you already have a fast manual fifty (but who doesn't?), you get a 100mm, 1:1 macro lens, with the added bonus that you can still use the TC as a TC.

For reference:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/368292-nature-butterflies.html

[kevinWE]

With the 50mm f1.7 you basically have several options. Each have their advantages.

1) Reverse the lens as you noted. It's cheap, doesn't cost you any light and will give you the greatest magnification, but you will need to move the camera which is best done with a macro slider.

2) Extension tubes. They can be pretty cheap, but not as cheap as the reverser, will give you more control on focusing, but you do loose light depending on how much extension you use.

3) Closeup filters (or Diopters). Easiest to use. However if you get cheap ones don't have high expectations. Expensive ones can cost as much as a lens.

4) Male to male adapters. If you have another lens with a 49mm filter you can reverse the 50mm on it.

5) Best option (drum roll please). Move up to a real macro; pick up a Tamron 90mm f2.5 adaptall lens for maybe $120 (with a K or better KA adapter, of course). It is a stunningly good lens. This was my wife's lens for years and she won may a flower photo contest with it.

I've done all of these ways. I would also recommend picking up an old copy of Shaw's "Closeups in Nature". It's an old film book, but it is really well written and will give you lots of excellent ideas about the options noted here.

I've read Shaw's book cover to cover at least 3 or 4 times, i page thought it for reference every now and again. A great recommendation and a great book.