Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Noticed this jewel on eBay

Pentax SMCP FA Ed If 200 mm F 4 0 If Ed Lens Perfect Condition A | eBay

I have one but it took 10 years to find it.

Murray

[BrianR]

Distance to subject on that one? That is a quite remarkable shot.

Working distance of the fisheye:



Higher magnification at the 17mm end, but the focusing distance is the same

[Bunch]

I did not realize the MFD on the 10-17 was so close. This is interesting news.

[Doundounba]

More room to position lights will be a win, no?

Perhaps. For me, the flash is not in the hotshoe, but usually remains physically attached to the camera, so the position of the lighting is fixed. (It usually looks something like this or that.) You're right that perhaps with someone/something else entirely holding the flash, having even more working distance could be an advantage. You might even be able to pull off a two-lights setup...

What kind of working distance are you getting with your 180mm + raynox 250?

Just measured it: at infinity focus, working distance is 12cm, image is 17mm (1.4:1); at MFD, working distance is 7.5cm, and the image is 8.5mm (2.8:1) . For working near 3:1, getting 7.5cm of working distance is actually pretty good. For instance, my Vivitar 105mm coupled with a Raynox MSN-202 (a much stronger diopter) gives me a comparable 9mm image, but just 3.5cm of working distance (at infinity focus). I'd much rather use 180mm+DCR250 than 105mm+MSN202 if I need up to around 3:1. I also believe the DoF is better with the longer setup, but haven't rigorously tested that. To compare, a coupled reversed lens set-up should give approximately 4.5cm of working distance.

Now, even 7.5cm is not huge, so the critter is usually perfectly aware of the camera's presence, especially on a frontal shot. Approach is still key...

you guys just need a DA 10-17.... $300

I definitely need a 10-17! I've hovered over the buy button several times. The 10-17mm actually does about 0.4:1 and is really not a bad close-up lens! Thomas Shahan has posted some excellent shots done with the 10-17mm (example). It allows one to show much more of the environment because of the wide perspective. You should put a short extension tube on and try to get to 1:1! It's the total polar opposite of the 200mm F/4.

That being said, even assuming your shot is not cropped and our dragonflies are of comparable sizes (I don't think they are), the shot you posted is at best about 1/4 of the magnification of the dragonfly back I posted upthread. Great shot though, and point well taken that you don't need super long lenses to do interesting shots of small critters.

[BrianR]

Perhaps. For me, the flash is not in the hotshoe, but usually remains physically attached to the camera, so the position of the lighting is fixed. (It usually looks something like this or that.) You're right that perhaps with someone/something else entirely holding the flash, having even more working distance could be an advantage. You might even be able to pull off a two-lights setup...

I've used a similar setup with a little softbox in a flash bracket holding it off to the side, but I typically have it on a lightstand (my new softbox is slightly larger and has sexy black duct tape on it so I look professional):




I use it on live targets too, like the frog photo in the photo above. Sometimes with a second flash, it depends. This bee is just one softbox on a lightstand (and some camping out near a sunflower):

Just measured it: at infinity focus, working distance is 12cm, image is 17mm (1.4:1); at MFD, working distance is 7.5cm, and the image is 8.5mm (2.8:1) . For working near 3:1, getting 7.5cm of working distance is actually pretty good. For instance, my Vivitar 105mm coupled with a Raynox MSN-202 (a much stronger diopter) gives me a comparable 9mm image, but just 3.5cm of working distance (at infinity focus). I'd much rather use 180mm+DCR250 than 105mm+MSN202 if I need up to around 3:1. I also believe the DoF is better with the longer setup, but haven't rigorously tested that. To compare, a coupled reversed lens set-up should give approximately 4.5cm of working distance.

Now, even 7.5cm is not huge, so the critter is usually perfectly aware of the camera's presence, especially on a frontal shot. Approach is still key...

Thanks for the measurements! I just picked up a DCR250 for more magnification with my dfa100mm without the lightloss of tubes or the awkwardness of reversing lenses. I'll be looking to try it on my longer dfa*300mm when adapter rings arrive.

I definitely need a 10-17! I've hovered over the buy button several times. The 10-17mm actually does about 0.4:1 and is really not a bad close-up lens! Thomas Shahan has posted some excellent shots done with the 10-17mm (example). It allows one to show much more of the environment because of the wide perspective. You should put a short extension tube on and try to get to 1:1! It's the total polar opposite of the 200mm F/4.

It's totally worth it. I've been using my da10-17mm and a da14mm vs fungus https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/125-flashes-lighting-studio/311090-lighti...close-ups.html. At 10mm the fish and the da14mm have roughly the same magnification with the fish being wider but not as sharp (this is relative, the fish is still quite good). The fish gets the option of higher magnification at the 17mm setting, and is smaller so generally easier to cram in next to your subject.

Showing the environment is great, but the perspective difference with your subject is also worth exploring (da14mm vs dfa100mm:

[Bunch]

I would find it most useful for animals other than insects. I take a lot of insect macros, often with a 100m coupled to a reversed 50m, sometimes on a set of tubes, which means my front element is damn near on the subject. Many insects are not all the skittesh if they're in a comfortable environment. I think the 200 macro would be awesome for stuff like birds, rabbits, which I find more skittesh and working distance would really help.

[sculptor666]

the da*300 does well with the raynox dcr-250(and a step down ring)... greater than 2:1 with 5" or so distance to the front of the lens... and it's nice to pop the raynox off and still have a close focusing * quality 300mm lens. a new macro would have to go to at least 2:1 for me... really want an auto aperture converter for canon's 4:1 macro... but that ain't hap'nin'.

[Digitalis]

the da*300 does well with the raynox dcr-250(and a step down ring)

The FA*200mm f/4 ED Macro is more than passable when it comes to macro photography. no adapter filters or extension tubes needed.


Pentax K10D - Pentax SMCP-FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro - ISO 800 f/5 1/250th

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 01-22-2016 at 08:03 PM. Reason: Correcting the shot data.

[dadipentak]

Pentax K10D - Pentax SMCP-FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro - ISO 100 f/5.6 1/500th

Well that pretty much settles it.

[normhead]

Well that pretty much settles it.

You can always argue a 1000 words with 2000 other words, but you can't argue with a picture.

[Digitalis]

I can't say I have ever been a fan of 200mm lenses, for a macro lens it makes a lot of sense. My problem is that 200mm on FX format* is too long for portraiture, too short for wildlife. The FA*200mm f/4 is one of three 200mm 35mm format lenses I own, the others being the Nikkor 200mm f/2G and Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L - all three lenses are superb.




Pentax K5IIs - Pentax SMCP-FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro - ISO 640 f/8 1/500th

but you can't argue with a picture.

That doesn't stop some idiots from trying though

They would probably complain that the image is noisy because was shot at ISO 800, and the image doesn't have enough DR considering the K10D uses the same CCD sensor as the Nikon D200. Because we all know that anything shot before the D800 was released is complete crap.

*on APS-C format 200mm is marginally more useful providing the lens can focus close enough.

[noelpolar]

The FA*200mm f/4 is one of three 200mm 35mm lenses I own

Only three eh, clearly not a preferred focal length for you........

[sculptor666]

i didn't say it was a bad lens or a bad macro, did i? i said:

a new macro would have to go to at least 2:1 for me

[starjedi]

i didn't say it was a bad lens or a bad macro, did i? i said:

a new macro would have to go to at least 2:1 for me

Not very realistic if you want Pentax delivers it... The only direct 2:1 macro at this moment for K mount is Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8, which is not a bad lens. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1128065-REG/venus_optics_ven6028p_60mm...tra_macro.html

[sculptor666]

i will just have to remain hopeful! i would have bought the laowa 2:1 if it had auto aperture! people seem to love that lens.... and it's very hard to argue with thomas shahan's results. as it is, it really needs to be coupled with their macro flash, which has a modeling lamp, so focusing stopped down is possible... but flash quality (longevity) doesn't seem to be up to par (?)

Not very realistic if you want Pentax delivers it... The only direct 2:1 macro at this moment for K mount is Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8, which is not a bad lens. Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro Lens VEN6028P B&H

[oneill]

Well that pretty much settles it.

While I originally thought I would just post a quick tip, this thread turned into an interesting discussion. But the subject, like Elvis, "Has left the building"

Murray