I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not going to give you the same overall image quality as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make matters worse.
When I say general purpose, its NOT my specific purpose or your specific purpose, its GENERAL PURPOSE (all around MACRO usage) where a macro lens would give better results than a NON MACRO lens would. I don't agree than 90-105mm and longer is a good general purpose macro lens focal length for APS. The original poster did not specify a specific usage so that is why I recommended a good general purpose MACRO focal length on APS , like the 50mm SMC-A MACRO lens. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:41 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > But the topis was a ONE > LENS macro setup, and for only one > lens those long lenses are too long > for general purpose macro IMHO. And that's your opinion which does not match MY opinion for MY one lens macro kit. > What make 300mm and 500mm true macro > lenses are you using? I have never > heard of any for 35mm/APS unless > you are just using regular lenses > with extensions. The 300mm is a Canon 300mm F4 L IS and it focuses to ~4ft for 1:3 magnification which is just about perfect for large butterflies (even better with a 1.4x TC). The Sigma APO 300mm F4 AF MACRO lens I had before had very similar characteristics. I know at least one guy that uses the 500mm with a 1.4x TC and 25mm extension for butterflies. I have not tried mine in this way. My point is that 50mm is not long COMPARED to 300mm or 500mm. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
