How do I know if a lens is a good macro

MikesChevelle · 01-23-2010, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by seacapt

Mike -got 2 questions for ya
1) what do you intend to shoot with a macro lens , let us know and maybe we can give a few suggestions of specific lenses to look for, your price range would help here too.
2) Whats in the Chevelle for a drive train?

1. I buy/sell alot of golf equipment and like to take really close detail pics to show their condition. I am hoping to find a manual lens on eBay in the $25 range?

2. 350 crate, edelbrock intake K&N extreme airfilter. 700R4 Tranny. Mostly a stock car, but fully restored.

Damn Brit · 01-24-2010, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by MikesChevelle

My 50 that I got says 1:2 on it yet I do not feel that it has much marco capabilities. I cant get much closer than about 2 and a half feet.

A macro lens will have MACRO printed on it.

seacapt · 01-24-2010, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by MikesChevelle

1. I buy/sell alot of golf equipment and like to take really close detail pics to show their condition. I am hoping to find a manual lens on eBay in the $25 range?

2. 350 crate, edelbrock intake K&N extreme airfilter. 700R4 Tranny. Mostly a stock car, but fully restored.

Mike- I don't believe you will find a true macro lens for under $100.00 even in MF used. You could look for a Pentax SMC M 50/4 macro, this is the least expensive that comes to mind. There are some older zoom lenses with macro/ close focus capabillity that are pretty nice and certainly good enough for what you want to do. The Pentax SMC A 35-105 fits this catagory. I use an old Tamron SP 35-80 adaptall alot! The close focus/ macro capabillity of this lens rivals some of the true macros. You can find the lens for @ $50.00. The down side is you'll need an adaptor these run about $20 for a PK and around $80 for a PKA but if you get the adaptor you'll be able to use all the adaptall lenses (some of which are very nice and sell cheap)

BTW I used to have a '66 SS convertible 396 , put in a 350 HP 327 after the big block blew up.

JeffJS · 01-24-2010, 12:19 PM

... as to what a Macro lens does.

As others have stated, Zooms are not macros though some claim to have the capability. A 1:1 Macro will allow you to do life sized reproductions. With a 1:2, you get half sized. If you want to go larger than life, you need a Bellows and proper lens. Most zooms with Macro 'capability' are at best 1:5 and should be considered to be Close Focus rather than Macro. That isn't to say that's a bad thing, you can still get decent product shots with them but they won't be Macros.

Focus distance doesn't matter in determining a macro lens but the size of the lens will determine focus distance. I have a 35mm macro (DA35mm Limited) that does 1:1 but I must get very close to the subject to get the subject in focus, almost touching the subject (which leaves 1:1 bug macros out of the picture for this lens). On the other side, my 105mm Vivitar 1:1 macro will allow me to get up close and personal without disturbing anything because I can step back a bit. The only real drawback of the lens, is it is not Autofocus and manual focus can actually be a chore with the lens. That lens though is still regarded as one of the best in it's range (and carries a price tag to match these days).

There are however a few ways of turning your 50mm f2.0 lens into a close focusing macro type lens. One is a set of Closeup filters. These are basically cheap magnifying glasses that screw onto the front of your lens. They typically come in sets of 3 with strengths of +1 +2 +3 (or sometimes +4). The results can be iffy sometimes but once you learn to use them, they may serve your needs. Another is a Reversing attachment. This will screw on to the lens and allow you to mount it backwards so the rear of the lens becomes the front. With both these options, your depth of field is near 0 and only the focus point will be in focus. Everything else around it will be blurry (this is true in the macro world in general). Therefore, you must make sure that what you want in focus is on the same plane as your camera (no tilting of the camera).

The third option, and my favorite, is find yourself a Vivitar 2x Macro focusing Teleconverter. These came in both PK and PK/A versions, the latter being more desirable because you can control the aperture on A (and above) lenses with it. Either one however, will turn that 50mm f2.0 into a 100mm f4 1:1 macro for a cost less than half of the cheapest dedicated 100mm.

Another option if you want to spend a little more cash is Vivitar use to make (or it was badged vivitar) a 100mm f3.5 1:2 macro that came with a closeup lens turning into a 1:1. I think the lens is now marketed under the name Pheonix and can be had for less than $100. It's been awhile since I looked at one so that information may be a little out of date.

Barring all that, focus as close as you can, get it as sharp as you can, and crop the image. Online for viewing detail of your products, it's probably good enough. Certainly better than a lot of people post in the for sale or ebay ads.

By the say, these mid range macro lenses (100mm) also make fantastic portrait lenses..

digitaldevo · 01-24-2010, 07:07 PM

A true macro is a ratio of 1:1(life size) or greater. Any zoom will, at best, do a 1:2 ratio, most do 1:4 or greater.

MikesChevelle · 01-24-2010, 11:39 PM

well I have a set of tubes to play with coming in the mail, and am watching a bellows on eBay

**boriscleto** · 01-25-2010, 12:22 AM

Keep an eye out for a Vivitar 2X Macro converter. It will turn any lens into a 1:1 macro. An A/50 f/2 becomes 100mm f/4 macro. I bought an Albinar branded macro converter for about $40.

The least expensive 1:1 macro you are likely to find is the Sigma A 50mm f/2.8. I paid $100 for mine.

JeffJS · 01-25-2010, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by MikesChevelle

well I have a set of tubes to play with coming in the mail, and am watching a bellows on eBay

With respect to the Bellows... Make sure the camera mount is there. Many of these units, including the pentax ones have a mount that is required to mount the camera to the bellows. This mount is removable and sometimes, is left on a camera somewhere. The bellows is useless without it. Ask about it on the one you are watching and if the seller cannot answer in the affirmative, move on to another one.

A normal set of extension tubes has 3 pieces. All 3 together with a 50mm will give you 1:1 closeup capability. The nice thing about them, especially the cheapo $10 sets, is that you can just keep going. Don't be afraid to experiment.

MikesChevelle · 01-25-2010, 10:00 AM

So if a set of tubes (3 ring) gets me 1:1 or atleast close to that. what about 3 sets of tubes. is that like 1:.05 or something or does there come a point of diminishing returns?

Marc Sabatella · 01-25-2010, 10:48 AM

As mentioned, focu distance is only part of the equation - focal length is the other. For a short focal length lens, you need to focus *very* close to get 1:1 macro - like maybe just an inch or two. But for longer focal length lenses, you get 1:1 at a much greater focus distance - like a foot or more. this isn't some weird arbitrary thing; it's common sense if you know what focal length is. If you have to lenses of different focal lengths and stand in the same place, the longer focal length lens makes things look bigger. So *of course* you need to get closer to the subejct to get the same magnification with the shorter focal length lens.

So to know the actual magnification of the lens, you can either plug the focal length and minimum focus distance into a magnification ratio calculator (there surely would be some online that Google would find for you) or you can simply find the printed specs for the lens, which often have the magnification ration printed on them.

But you really don't need 1:1 magnification to take closeups of golf clubs. 1:2 or 1:3 even would probably be sufficient - have you tried the kit lens at 55mm?

If you do need more mangification, sure, you can fiddle with tubes, but "fiddle" is definitely the right word here, and while more tubes give you more magnification, they also steal more light. Unless you real have a special need for them, I think you're better off with a Raynox 150 or 250 or something like that (see the "Raynox Club" thread in the lens forum for examples) which is a much simpler way to get excellent results.

But if you do decide to get a true macro lens, when I said that you can get MF ones for $100, I meant it. The Samyng-made (I think) lens sold as Phoenix or other brands went for $100 *new* and shouldn't be toohard to find. It is only 1:2 by itself, but comes with an adapter to make it 1:1. The Pentax M50/4 macro also goes for around $100 used - also only 1:2, but like I said, I 8really* doubt you need any more than that for your purpose.

**Just1MoreDave** · 01-25-2010, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by MikesChevelle

So if a set of tubes (3 ring) gets me 1:1 or atleast close to that. what about 3 sets of tubes. is that like 1:.05 or something or does there come a point of diminishing returns?

Yes, you start to lose light pretty quickly. If you increase the distance by a factor of 3 (3 sets of tubes), the light decreases by a factor of 9. Another factor you work against is depth of field. As magnification increases, depth of field drops. To fight this, the lens must be stopped down, which also reduces light.

Here's a post of mine from last year that shows some options discussed in this thread with 1 subject.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/50296-cheap-ma...-compared.html

MikesChevelle · 01-25-2010, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

Yes, you start to lose light pretty quickly. If you increase the distance by a factor of 3 (3 sets of tubes), the light decreases by a factor of 9. Another factor you work against is depth of field. As magnification increases, depth of field drops. To fight this, the lens must be stopped down, which also reduces light.

Here's a post of mine from last year that shows some options discussed in this thread with 1 subject.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/50296-cheap-ma...-compared.html

So just to see if I under stand. My 50mm F2 with 3 tubes will be then an F18 on the F2 setting?

01-24-2010, 08:54 AM	#18
seacapt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina , USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,271	Originally posted by MikesChevelle 1. I buy/sell alot of golf equipment and like to take really close detail pics to show their condition. I am hoping to find a manual lens on eBay in the $25 range? 2. 350 crate, edelbrock intake K&N extreme airfilter. 700R4 Tranny. Mostly a stock car, but fully restored. Mike- I don't believe you will find a true macro lens for under $100.00 even in MF used. You could look for a Pentax SMC M 50/4 macro, this is the least expensive that comes to mind. There are some older zoom lenses with macro/ close focus capabillity that are pretty nice and certainly good enough for what you want to do. The Pentax SMC A 35-105 fits this catagory. I use an old Tamron SP 35-80 adaptall alot! The close focus/ macro capabillity of this lens rivals some of the true macros. You can find the lens for @ $50.00. The down side is you'll need an adaptor these run about $20 for a PK and around $80 for a PKA but if you get the adaptor you'll be able to use all the adaptall lenses (some of which are very nice and sell cheap) BTW I used to have a '66 SS convertible 396 , put in a 350 HP 327 after the big block blew up. Last edited by seacapt; 01-24-2010 at 09:00 AM.

01-24-2010, 12:19 PM	#19
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	I think you're still confused.... ... as to what a Macro lens does. As others have stated, Zooms are not macros though some claim to have the capability. A 1:1 Macro will allow you to do life sized reproductions. With a 1:2, you get half sized. If you want to go larger than life, you need a Bellows and proper lens. Most zooms with Macro 'capability' are at best 1:5 and should be considered to be Close Focus rather than Macro. That isn't to say that's a bad thing, you can still get decent product shots with them but they won't be Macros. Focus distance doesn't matter in determining a macro lens but the size of the lens will determine focus distance. I have a 35mm macro (DA35mm Limited) that does 1:1 but I must get very close to the subject to get the subject in focus, almost touching the subject (which leaves 1:1 bug macros out of the picture for this lens). On the other side, my 105mm Vivitar 1:1 macro will allow me to get up close and personal without disturbing anything because I can step back a bit. The only real drawback of the lens, is it is not Autofocus and manual focus can actually be a chore with the lens. That lens though is still regarded as one of the best in it's range (and carries a price tag to match these days). There are however a few ways of turning your 50mm f2.0 lens into a close focusing macro type lens. One is a set of Closeup filters. These are basically cheap magnifying glasses that screw onto the front of your lens. They typically come in sets of 3 with strengths of +1 +2 +3 (or sometimes +4). The results can be iffy sometimes but once you learn to use them, they may serve your needs. Another is a Reversing attachment. This will screw on to the lens and allow you to mount it backwards so the rear of the lens becomes the front. With both these options, your depth of field is near 0 and only the focus point will be in focus. Everything else around it will be blurry (this is true in the macro world in general). Therefore, you must make sure that what you want in focus is on the same plane as your camera (no tilting of the camera). The third option, and my favorite, is find yourself a Vivitar 2x *Macro* focusing Teleconverter. These came in both PK and PK/A versions, the latter being more desirable because you can control the aperture on A (and above) lenses with it. Either one however, will turn that 50mm f2.0 into a 100mm f4 1:1 macro for a cost less than half of the cheapest dedicated 100mm. Another option if you want to spend a little more cash is Vivitar use to make (or it was badged vivitar) a 100mm f3.5 1:2 macro that came with a closeup lens turning into a 1:1. I think the lens is now marketed under the name Pheonix and can be had for less than $100. It's been awhile since I looked at one so that information may be a little out of date. Barring all that, focus as close as you can, get it as sharp as you can, and crop the image. Online for viewing detail of your products, it's probably good enough. Certainly better than a lot of people post in the for sale or ebay ads. By the say, these mid range macro lenses (100mm) also make fantastic portrait lenses..

01-25-2010, 01:02 AM	#23
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Make sure Originally posted by MikesChevelle well I have a set of tubes to play with coming in the mail, and am watching a bellows on eBay With respect to the Bellows... Make sure the camera mount is there. Many of these units, including the pentax ones have a mount that is required to mount the camera to the bellows. This mount is removable and sometimes, is left on a camera somewhere. The bellows is useless without it. Ask about it on the one you are watching and if the seller cannot answer in the affirmative, move on to another one. A normal set of extension tubes has 3 pieces. All 3 together with a 50mm will give you 1:1 closeup capability. The nice thing about them, especially the cheapo $10 sets, is that you can just keep going. Don't be afraid to experiment.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fast, Good Macro Lens?	Mark Morb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	45	10-27-2009 04:47 AM
What's a good, cheap macro lens?	joeyc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	08-24-2009 07:48 PM
Chinon 28/2.8 macro lens--any good?	heatherslightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	06-30-2009 07:50 PM
Good inexpensive macro lens?	EdZarts	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	07-26-2007 07:21 PM
Help finding a good Macro Lens	Jennifer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	12-08-2006 11:13 AM

01-23-2010, 10:31 PM	#16
MikesChevelle Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: STL Photos: Gallery Posts: 119 Original Poster	Originally posted by seacapt Mike -got 2 questions for ya 1) what do you intend to shoot with a macro lens , let us know and maybe we can give a few suggestions of specific lenses to look for, your price range would help here too. 2) Whats in the Chevelle for a drive train? 1. I buy/sell alot of golf equipment and like to take really close detail pics to show their condition. I am hoping to find a manual lens on eBay in the $25 range? 2. 350 crate, edelbrock intake K&N extreme airfilter. 700R4 Tranny. Mostly a stock car, but fully restored.

01-24-2010, 02:20 AM	#17
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by MikesChevelle My 50 that I got says 1:2 on it yet I do not feel that it has much marco capabilities. I cant get much closer than about 2 and a half feet. A macro lens will have MACRO printed on it.

01-24-2010, 07:07 PM	#20
digitaldevo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: PA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154	A true macro is a ratio of 1:1(life size) or greater. Any zoom will, at best, do a 1:2 ratio, most do 1:4 or greater.

01-24-2010, 11:39 PM	#21
MikesChevelle Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: STL Photos: Gallery Posts: 119 Original Poster	well I have a set of tubes to play with coming in the mail, and am watching a bellows on eBay

01-25-2010, 12:22 AM	#22
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	Keep an eye out for a Vivitar 2X Macro converter. It will turn any lens into a 1:1 macro. An A/50 f/2 becomes 100mm f/4 macro. I bought an Albinar branded macro converter for about $40. The least expensive 1:1 macro you are likely to find is the Sigma A 50mm f/2.8. I paid $100 for mine.

01-25-2010, 10:00 AM	#24
MikesChevelle Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: STL Photos: Gallery Posts: 119 Original Poster	So if a set of tubes (3 ring) gets me 1:1 or atleast close to that. what about 3 sets of tubes. is that like 1:.05 or something or does there come a point of diminishing returns?

01-25-2010, 10:48 AM	#25
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	As mentioned, focu distance is only part of the equation - focal length is the other. For a short focal length lens, you need to focus very close to get 1:1 macro - like maybe just an inch or two. But for longer focal length lenses, you get 1:1 at a much greater focus distance - like a foot or more. this isn't some weird arbitrary thing; it's common sense if you know what focal length is. If you have to lenses of different focal lengths and stand in the same place, the longer focal length lens makes things look bigger. So of course you need to get closer to the subejct to get the same magnification with the shorter focal length lens. So to know the actual magnification of the lens, you can either plug the focal length and minimum focus distance into a magnification ratio calculator (there surely would be some online that Google would find for you) or you can simply find the printed specs for the lens, which often have the magnification ration printed on them. But you really don't need 1:1 magnification to take closeups of golf clubs. 1:2 or 1:3 even would probably be sufficient - have you tried the kit lens at 55mm? If you do need more mangification, sure, you can fiddle with tubes, but "fiddle" is definitely the right word here, and while more tubes give you more magnification, they also steal more light. Unless you real have a special need for them, I think you're better off with a Raynox 150 or 250 or something like that (see the "Raynox Club" thread in the lens forum for examples) which is a much simpler way to get excellent results. But if you do decide to get a true macro lens, when I said that you can get MF ones for $100, I meant it. The Samyng-made (I think) lens sold as Phoenix or other brands went for $100 new and shouldn't be toohard to find. It is only 1:2 by itself, but comes with an adapter to make it 1:1. The Pentax M50/4 macro also goes for around $100 used - also only 1:2, but like I said, I 8really* doubt you need any more than that for your purpose.

01-25-2010, 11:09 AM	#26
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by MikesChevelle So if a set of tubes (3 ring) gets me 1:1 or atleast close to that. what about 3 sets of tubes. is that like 1:.05 or something or does there come a point of diminishing returns? Yes, you start to lose light pretty quickly. If you increase the distance by a factor of 3 (3 sets of tubes), the light decreases by a factor of 9. Another factor you work against is depth of field. As magnification increases, depth of field drops. To fight this, the lens must be stopped down, which also reduces light. Here's a post of mine from last year that shows some options discussed in this thread with 1 subject. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/50296-cheap-ma...-compared.html

01-25-2010, 11:42 AM	#27
MikesChevelle Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: STL Photos: Gallery Posts: 119 Original Poster	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave Yes, you start to lose light pretty quickly. If you increase the distance by a factor of 3 (3 sets of tubes), the light decreases by a factor of 9. Another factor you work against is depth of field. As magnification increases, depth of field drops. To fight this, the lens must be stopped down, which also reduces light. Here's a post of mine from last year that shows some options discussed in this thread with 1 subject. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/50296-cheap-ma...-compared.html So just to see if I under stand. My 50mm F2 with 3 tubes will be then an F18 on the F2 setting?