Hi.
as someone who shoots a lot of macro stuff, I'd seriously recommend the
Tamron 90/2.8, which is 1:1, and is a fabulous portrait lens to boot. Its
exceedingly sharp edge to edge, and has a 55mm front end, which fits most
ring flashes out of the box. It comes in Manual and autofocus versions.
Having had both, there is nothing between them in optical terms, but I have
found that the manual focus lens required a decent focusing screen when you
are in real close.
However, I don't as a rule use ring flashes, as I have found it next to
impossible to get a TTL unit to fit pentax here in Ireland at any sort of a
reasonable price. I generally use two metz 45 bracket flashes on standard
light clamps. Its ungainly, but works ok. it also requires a large degree
of co-operation from the subject :)
Hope this helps,
T.
At 14:18 25/06/2001 +0530, Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote:
>Hi Jon!
>
>You are absolutely correct. Therefore, the final decision is to go for a
>macro lens having magnification of 1:1.
>Yep, I need a long working distance of about 1 feet but not less than 10
>inch so that a macro ring flash can be attached on the lens. A 100mm
>Macro lens will do that for me.But wait a minute, I have a
>question. Suppose I need a longer working distance than 1 feet, then you
>should ask me to go for 200 mm Macro lens. In order to solve the problem
>in cheaply, suppose I use a teleconverter of 2x ratio. That will convert
>the present lens (100 mm MACRO) to 200 mm with a loss of two stops of
>aperture. What happens to the Macro magnification ratio? Does it remains
>1:1 or it decreases. I think remains as it is.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Cheers,
>Ayash Kanto.
>
>
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jon Hope wrote:
>
> > 1:1, always. A 1:1 macro lens will do 1:2 on it's nose, but a 1:2 macro
> > will only go to 1:1 with adapters of some sort. The real question
> regarding
> > macro lenses is how much working distance you want, and therefore how much
> > focal length you need. At 1:1 the working distance on a 50mm macro is a
> > couple of inches from memory. It is roughly twice that for 100mm, and
> > roughly twice that again for 200mm. The working distance is important for
> > things that move, more than for things that don't. It is also easier to
> use
> > a flash at longer working distances.
> >
> > I hope that helps a tad.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Jon
>
>
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Terence Mc Goff | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If its worth doing, Its worth Overdoing.
John William Corrington, Shreveport, 1956.
PLease report all problems and flames to mailto:/dev/null ...........
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
