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.

---

Well there's a surprise in my periodic scan of ebay:

[14899Z6] Complete product PENTAX SMC PENTAX-FA 200mm F4 MACRO ED IF Hooded supe | eBay



♦ Condition
Excellent++

♦ Appearance (not including optical/glass part)
There are slight small scratches.
No large scratch.
The state of Mount also good.
Overall Very good condition.
No sticky and cigarette odor.
Please check on the photos for detailed condition of the product.

♦ Optical/Glass system
No scratch,
No haze/fog,
There are some small dust. (It does not affect the photograph),
No balsam separation,
No fungus

♦ Function
It works properly.
Focusing is smooth and accurate.

If you have any question or concern, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for visiting.

[luftfluss]

Yes, but at 1:2, is it really even a macro... or just what Vivitar calls a macro for marketing purposes?

Pentax also calls 1:2 "Macro"... SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F3.5 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[acoufap]

Pentax also calls 1:2 "Macro"... SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F3.5 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

And also Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE offers max 1:2.

[pres589]

... and Tamron, and Canon, etc etc.

[normhead]

You didn't answer the question. Owning 2 Pentax macros, one Tamron and one Sigma that all do 1:1, just asking, should these be recommended as macros.

If you think I was asking what everyone does, I don't give rats derriere about what everyone does. I don't consider myself to be part of a herd.

What I'm asking is, are you guys comfortable with calling 1:2 macro.
Personally Id' be upset if I mistakenly bought a lens labelled macro, that only did 1:2, like my old Sigma 70-300. Since then I look at the box a lot more closely.

Personally, I would never recommend a 1:2 lens for macro work. But hey, I understand others have different standards.

Personally, I think people need to be warned that a lens claiming to be macro on the box can be as low as 1:2 magnification.

[Sandy Hancock]

What I'm asking is, are you guys comfortable with calling 1:2 macro.

It looks as if the consensus answer is probably yes. In addition to all the other lenses mentioned above, even the highly regarded SMC Pentax-A 50/2.8 Macro "only" goes to 1:2

Personally, I also draw the line at 1:1 - but like most lines, it's a bit arbitrary

[JensE]

Currently there's no Sigma 180mm for Pentax from france.

One very good copy from Germany did sell for 250€ this month:
Sigma EX 180mm 3.5 DG Macro PENTAX AF , Spitzenmacro #LB22 | eBay

It didn't. I was the buyer but noticed that it didn't have a Pentax mount just in time before they sent it and cancelled.

[steamloco76]

It looks as if the consensus answer is probably yes. In addition to all the other lenses mentioned above, even the highly regarded SMC Pentax-A 50/2.8 Macro "only" goes to 1:2

Personally, I also draw the line at 1:1 - but like most lines, it's a bit arbitrary

Here is how to get some real macro magnification out of the SMC-A 50/2.8 Macro

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[luftfluss]

You didn't answer the question. Owning 2 Pentax macros, one Tamron and one Sigma that all do 1:1, just asking, should these be recommended as macros.

If you think I was asking what everyone does, I don't give rats derriere about what everyone does. I don't consider myself to be part of a herd.

What I'm asking is, are you guys comfortable with calling 1:2 macro.
Personally Id' be upset if I mistakenly bought a lens labelled macro, that only did 1:2, like my old Sigma 70-300. Since then I look at the box a lot more closely.

Personally, I would never recommend a 1:2 lens for macro work. But hey, I understand others have different standards.

Personally, I think people need to be warned that a lens claiming to be macro on the box can be as low as 1:2 magnification.

It looks as if the consensus answer is probably yes. In addition to all the other lenses mentioned above, even the highly regarded SMC Pentax-A 50/2.8 Macro "only" goes to 1:2

Personally, I also draw the line at 1:1 - but like most lines, it's a bit arbitrary

I, personally, wouldn't call a lens that does not do 1:1 a "Macro", but if I saw a zoom had a "macro mode" I would assume it was somewhere between 1:2 and 1:4.

It's kind of like my Swiss Army Knife claims to have a saw, but I don't consider that dinky serrated edge to be one.

[Sandy Hancock]

Here is how to get some real macro magnification out of the SMC-A 50/2.8 Macro

I really should get my Q7 out more often

[JensE]

Yes, but at 1:2, is it really even a macro... or just what Vivitar calls a macro for marketing purposes?

It's not just VIvitar, it seems to have been a widely used minimum for primes across the industry - even the not too old Zeiss Marko-Planar 100/2.0 ends at 1:2, including the current Milvus "vom Typ Makro-Planar". But it's of course easy to answer for a German as there is a German technical standard DIN 19040 "Nomenclature of photography; photographic technical terms in general use for photographic proceedings" which generously defines (according to unverified internet sources) macro photography to happen between 1:10 and 10:1 , so all the pseudo-macro zooms are capable of macro photography!

But back to 1:2 - I do think this is rightfully macro territory, in 35mm format: A negative with 36mm width covers 72mm object width, can can be printed multiple times larger than that and still fit into "optimal viewing" conditions as a whole. I.e., it shows objects larger than life and may reveal details hidden from the naked eye - mine, at least .

Me? I don't consider 1:2 macro lenses worthwhile for my photography.

[y0chang]

Frankly, for that price you can buy a Nikon 200mm f4 macro and have enough to buy a full frame body with the leftover money.

[BarneyL]

Just out of curiosity - are there zoom lenses that do 1:1 macro?

[JensE]

The Nikon 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-D Micro-NIKKOR at least comes close (1:1.32 at 180mm).

[angerdan]

Just out of curiosity - are there zoom lenses that do 1:1 macro?

The only current producion model is the Panasonic LUMIX PRO S-R24105 which offers 1:2.
LUMIX PRO S-R24105 | LUMIX S Standard Lens | Panasonic UK & Ireland

3:1 with AF:
Minolta AF 3x-1x 1.7-2.8 Macro A-mount lens info
Konica Minolta 3X-1X f/1.7-2.8 Macro Zoom AF Review

Hasselblad Schneider Variogon Varigon CF Macro 140-280mm f/5 with 1:5.8:
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/LDS/Variogon.pdf

LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 1:4/35-70 mm with 1:8:
https://en.leica-camera.com/layout/set/simplified/content/download/102814/90...20Daten_de.pdf

[normhead]

Frankly, for that price you can buy a Nikon 200mm f4 macro and have enough to buy a full frame body with the leftover money.

For that money you can buy the same lens and a K-1 if you find one at a a better price. This is the first I've seen for much over $2k. Not everything on Ebay is a good deal.