[vmax84]

Camera check (K100D), lens check (standard kit lens 18-55 and Tamron bottom of the line 75-300mm), etc.

What else do I need to shoot insects, flowers, etc., up close and personal? You'd think it would be as easy as flipping the rotary switch to Macro on the camera and being an instant pro.

Suggestions? Thank you.

vmax84

[Duck Dodgers]

Unlike P&S cameras with their small lenses and smaller CCDs, your minimum focusing distance on your lenses will limit the image size of bugs and stuff. The cheap way to get there is with "macro filters" (not a filter at all, but a magnifying glass in front of the lens), or extension tubes (which move the lens away from the CCD, allowing it to focus closer). There are also lens reversal rings, allowing you to mount your existing lens backwards on the camera. Then there are true macro lenses which can capture a 1:2 or 1:1 image (life-size). By way of comparison, your Tamron is capable of a 1:3.9 magnification ratio (at 4.9 feet), and your kit lens is 1:3 (at 10 inches).

Typical "true" macro lenses are found in focal lengths of 30mm, 50mm, 90-to-105mm, 150mm, 180mm...the shorter the focal length, the closer you have to get to your subject (sometimes making it hard to illuminate), but they are less expensive. Macro lenses have much better IQ than the "filters" and tubes, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

[Ash]

Sure, the 18-55 and 70-300 have a macro range on their focusing ring, but these aren't true macro lenses, so their capabilities are quite limited. Fitting extension tubes to the 70-300 may help, but image quality would come out only so-so.

True (dedicated) macro lenses are your best option as these are designed to be able to capture the small things in life, life-size. You'll find manual focus macros quite affordable if you can find them.

[newarts]

Your Tamron len's maximum magnification is now 1:3.9, corresponding to a field width of about 94mm.

If you add a Raynox DCR 150 close-up lens to the Tamron the maximum magnification would increase to over 1:1, corresponding to a field with of about 24mm and the minimum magnification (70mm, focuused at infinity) would be 1:2.9.

The working distance would decrease from 4.9' to about 8".

Thus you'd have an almost continuous range of field widths from infinity all the way down to 24mm or so; this is a very broad range for hand-held photographic work. The Image Quality would should not be compromised by the excellent Raynox lens.

The Raynox DCR 150 sells for about $50USD delivered on ebay.

Dave in Iowa

[YJD]

I have a Raynox DCR-250 and it's great1 It allows more magnification than the 150 and isn't that more expensive, $10 I think. Both of them can adapt on almost any lens (thread from 52 to 67mm if I remember right).

Otherwise you have bellows as well, I just bought one yesterday on eBay, so I will let you know. But I heard that professional macro is made with bellows and reverse ring. Of course a true macro lens 1:1 is more than welcome but usually around $400.

Here is a link to some of my macro shot with my Raynox Capture Beauty: raynox.

[imtheguy]

I concur with Newarts on the Raynox for your 70-300mm. One of my macro setups is the Raynox 150 on my 55-300mm since the Raynox is so small it just drops in your pocket if you are out with only the long tele. That combo can give you some interesting closeups. You can look at my gallery in the forum for the spider that was one of my first shots and was a difficult, in the field opportunity that would have been missed if not for the Raynox in my pocket.

Be prepared to stop down as far as available light will allow, to f/22 when possible, to get the depth of field that is lost when up close with that big lens. The Raynox 250 is probably too much for a 70-300mm lens so unless you can test before buying, stick with the 150. There are a couple of recent threads on this topic. Search for Raynox and find more reading material. Good luck, I will look for your pics.


edit - Looks like YJD and I were replying the same time. I was not countering his recommendation of the 250...that would certainly be the one for your shorter lens. Again, there is an existing thread on this topic of which one that is about a month old you should find.

[newarts]

edit - Looks like YJD and I were replying the same time. I was not countering his recommendation of the 250...that would certainly be the one for your shorter lens. ...

The Raynox DCR 250 on the shorter lens gives a larger magnification (1:4+) than the 150 on a 70-200 zoom (1:1+), but has a pretty short working distance, around 5" (1/8 meter).

The reasons I suggest the weaker 150 are:
1) a working distance of about 8".vs 5"... that 3" makes lighting a little easier.
2) a magnification of greater than 1:1 is pretty hard to use without tripod, etc, so the useful magnification range of the 250 on the short zoom is limited at both high and low ends.

But either can yield great results,

Dave

[NaClH2O]

vmax: Echo the others suggesting a raynox. The trade offs between that and a "true" macro lens is that a macro lens will give better resolution and most likely be a faster lens. On the other side you will save a significant chunck of cash. Give youself plenty of time playing with the raynox b4 you decide on a macro lens. Many many ppl buy a macro lens and after 6 months or so get tired of the demands of macro and the poor old lens gets lonely sitting on the shelf. If, on the other hand you find you really enjoy macro photography, after 6+ months of using your raynox, then is the time to go hunting for a 'true' macro lens (of which there are many)

NaCl(macro isn't for everybody)H2O

[GerryL]

I have the Raynox DCR-250 too and it is great. You have to shell out around $50-$60 I think for it and not $10 as YJD suggested..but then again, he could have been lucky to find a shop that sells it cheap.
I still plan to get the Raynox DCR-150 for less magnification.
Here is a picture taken with it:

[vmax84]

Man, you guys are something else..............

I am always amazed how much knowledge is on this site.

Thank you very much.

vmax84

[GerryL]

Plus the Raynox DCR-250/150 have a convenient filter adapter that can fit a lens filter size front of 52mm-67mm, so you can also conveniently put it on and take it off in a matter of seconds than in the case of macro filters which you have to screw each on and off the filter thread each time you have to use them.
The adapter of the Raynox are much like the pinch lens caps and the actual macro lens resides in the middle of it so "easy-on and off".

[Marc Sabatella]

I have the Raynox DCR-250 too and it is great. You have to shell out around $50-$60 I think for it and not $10 as YJD suggested..

I think he was saying it's only $10 *more* than the DCR-150. Actually, the prices are often identical.

Anyhow, I also concur with the suggestion to use one of these. I bought the 150 for the greater workign distance and have never regretted it. It's also over 1:1 magnification with my DA50-200, and I can of course always crop to get more if I really feel like it. I would not be willing to give up a few inches of working distance just to get more magnification. If it were *optional*, that would be one thing. but the Raynox adapters basically *force* you into one particular working distance, and I'll take 7-8" over 4-5" any day. Might not sound like a big deal, but it really is.

As for the clip on adapter, I actually don't like it and stopped using it a few months ago. It makes the Raynox bulky enugh that I wasn't taking it with me often, plus it can be difficult to get it centered over the lens. So I bought a 43-49 filter adapter on Ebay that I leave permanently attached to the Raynox so it can screw on to my primes. Takes up much less space in my bag, and is only maybe a second or two slower to put on or take off.

BTW, I've never used the macro setting on the dial. I imagine it closes down the aperture for more DOF, maybe increases JPEG sharpness too? No idea; I've never used it. But certainly, when shooting macro, you do normally need to stop way down to get decent DOF, and you are likely to want to apply more sharpening than usual. AF is close to useless in macro photography - DOF is shallow and it's difficult to get the system to focus where you want. Generally, you focus by simply moving forward or backward a millimeter at a time.

[vmax84]

Again, all good stuff and I appreciate it.

Do I need a Ranynox that says "for Pentax lens", or "for Pentax stuff", or do I just need to make sure I get the right size for my kit lens and cheap Tamron 75-300mm lens?

Thanks again.

vmax84

[Marc Sabatella]

There are no different versions for Pentax versus other camera brands, nor are there different sizes for different lens. That's why it comes with a clip on adapter - so it can mount to any lens, any camera (well, "most", anyhow - the adapter handles filter sizes of 52mm - 67mm, I think ). The 150 and 250 are both the same physical size (well, the 250 might be thicker, but mount-wise they are identical).

It depends on how close you want to get. My rig is fairly extrema and will give results like below. If you don't want to spend a lot of money on it the other option seam to be the Raynox macro filter. I would stay away from the cheaper filter sets. You can get some results from them but it's a lot more work and less chance of getting the shot. Hope this helps.