Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

macro lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:51 am    Post subject: macro lens Reply with quote

that the macro economic lens to mount Pentax?
thanks


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An any mount normal or wide lens, slow, cheap but with great image quality
+ Reverse mount adapter (9$)
+ if more magnification is needed 56mm macro extension tube (9$)

There are people out there taking great shots with wide lenses, I'm just a newbie in macro field but even I can shoot nice (paralyed or dead) bug macros with this combo, and very nice still life macros. You will need LIGHT to make the focus properly and using flashes is a mandatory in my opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks, but I'm looking for a goal really macro. having a good quality.
the macro is not my specialty, but I want to do some things.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

revinhood wrote:
thanks, but I'm looking for a goal really macro. having a good quality.
the macro is not my specialty, but I want to do some things.


just mind the macro range is similar to the normal lenses for shots in the normal world Smile

you need some wide open, some basic, some portrait, some telephoto lens...Smile

for instance - some 28mm, 35mm have great macro capabilities but you have to keep a close distance ...
so can not approach some objects if they are too far...Smile) and also they are not good for insect which may be disturbed..

but perfect to capture some scenes with better DOF...

For insect you need definitely macro about 100 mm...which is telephoto --- perfect for fine details and insect or objects they are too far...

so if you can specify your objectives .. Smile

tf


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:51 am    Post subject: Re: macro lens Reply with quote

revinhood wrote:
that the macro economic lens to mount Pentax?


I would suggest an SMC-Takumar 100/4. A great lens with superb bokeh. Not very fast but usually you don't need super fast lenses in macro. It's quite cheap for a Pentax made 100mm macro lens too.

You could also look for a Tamron Adaptall 90/2.5, a good all purpose lens, faster than the Takumar but a little bit more expensive, especially if you have to buy the Pentax Adaptall ring.

These two lenses only go up to the 1:2 magnification ratio. You will have to add a teleconverter or a tube to reach 1:1. There are also macro lenses from other third party manufacturers (Vivitar...) but I have never tried them.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the 90-105 range there is a plethora of great lenses. One has been mentioned - the Tam, but look also for Vivitar Ser1, Kiron, Tokina. They are all excellent and can be quite hard to find as well as increasingly expensive. The old nikkors (55/3.5, 55/2.8, 105/4) ar also very good as is the 200/4 micro. Any one of these will probably do what you want.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Macro by definition is NOT that range, it is 1:1 ... 50:1 (excuse me for being an engineer). The range <1:1 is why Nikon calls lenses for that "Micro" like the Micro Nikkors. Ever wondered about that name? Now you know why....

Special macro lenses are plenty available, have a look at my site http://www.macrolenses.de there you'll find the REALLY good ones and plenty of them.

In case you want sth special, ask me, ideally directly postmaster@macrolenses.de I am happy to help.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Macro by definition is NOT that range, it is 1:1 ... 50:1 (excuse me for being an engineer). The range <1:1 is why Nikon calls lenses for that "Micro" like the Micro Nikkors. Ever wondered about that name? Now you know why....


yep! I see ....

I would say - THE RANGE as LINE of (macro) LENSES -
shortly - MACRO RANGE
or better said MACRO'S RANGE Smile
or it will be better when the expert describes this instead of me:)

tf


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
In case you want sth special, ask me, ideally directly postmaster@macrolenses.de I am happy to help.


I'd like to ask you about 100 questions Smile regarding macro TECHINQUES if this possible - via email...?

let me know...

thanks

tf


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess better to ask on public forum, so many people able to read and learn from it.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

we must remember that the mount should be K


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good idea, there is quite some knowledge out there!


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klaus

I was referring to focal length not macro range and I believe I am correct in suggesting that there are a lot of fine lenses designed for macro work in that focal range. Unfortunately it seems common among lens manufacturers to start their "macro" definition at 1:2 rather than your engineer's 1:1. Your site is definitive.


patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick,

my definition is not "self made" but a German DIN norm and I would guess now also one in the EU.

Focal length to denote a macro lens is rather useless since I have special "macro lenses" of 800mm focal length down to 10mm - achievable magnification changes of course but most importandly the working distance. I'd rather prefer the final magnification on chip/film as a measure for a "macro lens" rather than working distance.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klaus

I did not mean to imply that you were using some made-up definition and I would hope that the lens manufacturers would follow the DIN norm, but they currently do not and I seriously doubt if they will. I mentioned that particular focal length because it is a very popular one among users and manufacturers (and so availability is high). Actual magnification ratios are rarely of much use to a newcomer, and become meaningful only after a few attempts and a desire to continue. I well remember how blown away I was with my first genuine 1:1 after a period of the "manufacturers' defined" 1:2. Lens reversing, bellows and extension rings bring a whole new world of accessibility and complexity as well as a need to understand the ratios. Smile Smile Smile


patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for being so "german" Patrick. I guess I went a bit overboard - I should have considered the level of people you were addressing...


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klaus

Not "german" - "proper". There is nothing to forgive and I have the highest regard for your expertise and especially for your willingness to share it all through that website of yours.


patrickh