RE: Macro Lenses
From: Walter Hamler I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt I lucked into a Pentax-A 100 f/2.8 macro a year or so back, and it's a fine lens. The f/4 lens only goes to .5x, while the f/2.8 goes to 1x. And according to Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Equipment Page, the f/2.8A is somewhat more frequently available, even if KEH doesn't actually have one on-hand right now. BH has an Auto Bellows Set A in their used inventory, BTW. Or, I should say, will have had, since I think I'll order it for myself as soon as they re-open this evening. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: John Sessoms Subject: RE: Macro Lenses I lucked into a Pentax-A 100 f/2.8 macro a year or so back, and it's a fine lens. The f/4 lens only goes to .5x, while the f/2.8 goes to 1x. And according to Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Equipment Page, the f/2.8A is somewhat more frequently available, even if KEH doesn't actually have one on-hand right now. BH has an Auto Bellows Set A in their used inventory, BTW. Or, I should say, will have had, since I think I'll order it for myself as soon as they re-open this evening. The A100/2.8 macro is one of the better ones I have used. If you get the auto bellows and want to mount it to a DSLR, make sure you also get a short extension tube as well. The short tube out of the auto extension tube set will do the trick. And, have a look for the 100mm bellows lens. I have the bellows Tak and it is very good, I'd like to get the bayonet one, but not at the prices that sellers seem to think they are worth at the moment. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
You could use the same argument to say that an image made on ASA25 film is not the same magnification as an image made on ASA1600 film. It's not relevant. Magnification is the relationship between the original and the image size, however much information is present. You are right that it doesn't make much sense to compare the images you suggest, though. It's just a different issue. From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/03/15 Thu AM 02:39:12 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Macro Lenses magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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 - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
absolutely correct. mishka On 3/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMAT IS NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or calculation ! ! ! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Mishka, Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a 16x24mm area. G On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
i didn't say the mag. in two cases is different. i did say that comparison is meaningless, although, technically, they have the same mag. best, mishka On 3/15/07, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could use the same argument to say that an image made on ASA25 film is not the same magnification as an image made on ASA1600 film. It's not relevant. Magnification is the relationship between the original and the image size, however much information is present. You are right that it doesn't make much sense to compare the images you suggest, though. It's just a different issue. From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/03/15 Thu AM 02:39:12 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Macro Lenses magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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 - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses - only a fool would....
Nice compression. Markus Maurer wrote: I got so confused about all this small /big macro/tele chat that I foolishly left the Pentax A50mm macro in the bag and used the Tamron SP 500 mirror lens for a flower shot this morning :-) http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/solicom/eastermirror.jpg greetings Markus -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
The format is irrelevant to magnification. I was giving an example. If you understood what I said, you'd understand that it was the same thing ... said another way: - The size of the DSLR format is 16x24. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. - The size of the 35mm format is 24x36. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. G On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Mishka wrote: absolutely correct. mishka On 3/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMAT IS NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or calculation ! ! ! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Mishka, Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a 16x24mm area. G On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. -- 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 -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
no, you specifically gave the magnifacation calcualtion as the size of the subject to the size of the format which is WRONG, its the size of the subject to the size of the subject's lens image, changing formats does not change this, and changing from APS to 35mm to Medium format or whatever, has no effect on the magnifcation calculation, format is not a factor, $ should not be considered...If you meant to say something else, you didnt. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses The format is irrelevant to magnification. I was giving an example. If you understood what I said, you'd understand that it was the same thing ... said another way: - The size of the DSLR format is 16x24. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. - The size of the 35mm format is 24x36. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. G On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Mishka wrote: absolutely correct. mishka On 3/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMAT IS NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or calculation ! ! ! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Mishka, Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a 16x24mm area. G On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. -- 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 -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall. size of the format does not enter the equation. best, mishka On 3/15/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. ... So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Macro Lenses incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall. size of the format does not enter the equation. Actually, what Godfrey is saying is correct. You might want to try rereading his post. William Robb On 3/15/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. ... So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
The thing he said that people are contending against is : Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. Nothing else he posted was incorrect but this part was. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:57 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses - Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Macro Lenses incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall. size of the format does not enter the equation. Actually, what Godfrey is saying is correct. You might want to try rereading his post. William Robb On 3/15/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. ... So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
I give up. People don't know how to read. G On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:57 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Macro Lenses incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall. size of the format does not enter the equation. Actually, what Godfrey is saying is correct. You might want to try rereading his post. William Robb On 3/15/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. ... So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Macro Lenses I give up. People don't know how to read. Soylent Green is people.. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something? Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:45:14 -0600 - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Macro Lenses I give up. People don't know how to read. Soylent Green is people.. William Robb -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Macro Lenses uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something? Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. I just finged one at yer head. Did it hurt? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:37:50 -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote The format is irrelevant to magnification. I was giving an example. If you understood what I said, you'd understand that it was the same thing ... said another way: - The size of the DSLR format is 16x24. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. - The size of the 35mm format is 24x36. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. G Absolutely correct. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Macro Lenses uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something? Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. I just finged one at yer head. Did it hurt? William Robb Only my feelings. :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Macro Lenses I just finged one at yer head. Did it hurt? William Robb Only my feelings. :-) get past it, ya big baby ww -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something? Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. So far as I know only one member of this list has never misread anything!! I'm not sure that the word stone adequately represents the very glutinous nature of the object being throwm Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Peter Fairweather wrote: uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something? Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. So far as I know only one member of this list has never misread anything!! I can think of at least one who appears never to have *read* anything on the list ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Giving an interesting twist to the lyric, People who love people ... Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Soylent Green is people.. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Statement: I don't like your mother in law. Answer: Then just eat the vegetables. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Giving an interesting twist to the lyric, People who love people ... Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Soylent Green is people.. -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
of course 1:1 or 1:2 is achieved at same distances, but the whole point of that paragraph of my post is you dont need 1:1 or 1:2 to get same photo as you would with 35mm, you only need 1:1.5 or 1:3 so your working distance is longer by approx 50% for same type of photo (same object/framing), this is the very reason why a 50mm lens on APS is good for general purpose macro, it gives a better working distance than was possible with FF 35mm format, yet still gives a reasonably normal AOV. yes for some weird technical reason you might still want 1:1 on APS as you did on FF 35mm film, but its not real world and since digital is not an actual negative and isnt something you could actually measure and analyze like you could a real neg, I really dont think there would be much need to have an actual 1:1 vs a 1:1.5 digital for example even for technical reasons. Real world is going to be 99%+ an actual scene or object with same framing/AOV is needed, NOT same image magnification needed. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:58:01 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l. ON APS gives much better working distances than it did on on 35mm FF format for same subject framing. This is because you dont have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill the frame on APS as you did on FF 35mm. But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
I say there is more requirements than just a possible high magnification to a TRUE macro lens. Its got to be optimized for those high mags to be a true macro in my opinion, not just a BTW, heres some high mag settings on the focus rings for you to play with type deal jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Traditionally Macro started at 1:2. lots of lenses that were only close focusing 1:4 were labeled as macro however. Christian wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses, however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the *ist D. 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. The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon doesn't say macro on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. 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. And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a longer working distance is a better choice. -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
Mishka, Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a 16x24mm area. G On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMAT IS NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or calculation ! ! ! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Mishka, Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a 16x24mm area. G On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made on them? best, mishka On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28 mm F series. exactly, I too like my F50/1.7 and IMHO only Limiteds and everything pre-A are nicer looking. Actually it was the first AF lens I've bought to see what about AF is. I still prefer to focus it manually even on ist-Ds. :-) Cheers, Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I forgot to add that the FA 100/3.5 Macro is a 1:2 lens. If I'm not mistaken older version of the Tamron 90 Macro were 1:2 as well (1:1 with matched adapter). 2007/3/13, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have few experience with macro lenses 'cos I only own two: * Tamron SP 70-210 3.5-4 Macro which is good but not really a macro lens (a zoom even macro will never be a really good macro lens imo) * Pentax FA 100/3.5 macro (really a Cosina lens). I find it good. It was veeery slow to ficus with the ist-d but is very acceptable with K10D. Would be good if there was a focus limiter. Very satisfied for the price I got it wihch was about 150 euros second hand. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I have the M100/4 macro. Cheap and tack sharp. Bokeh could be better. Toine On 3/13/07, Walter Hamler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Green I must be colour blind as well as liking ugly looking lenses :-) They look dark grey to me (although I was in the military as well - but I try to block that memory out as much as possible) I do use the Fs on the DS occasionally but I find the DA 16-45 has pretty much replaced both of them, even though it's a bit slower. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Of course your right about the different tastes Brian, do you use the F's on DSLR? I seem to have an aversion against green since my military service :-( greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Walters Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28 mm F series. Cheers Brian -- Click here for huge discounts on tradeshow supplies - special offer http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJlQAOuD7JZiXHMsRZ1Ifja8l04/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. jco Depends more on the subject matter IMHO, for repro work or working in a controlled environment the 50mm on film or 35mm on digital is fine. I find for living subjects, insects, plants and the like the longer lenses have a distinct advantage, allowing more distance betwen the photog and subject. I have the M 50/4 and used it for copy work and slide copying with bellows, but I use the Sigma EX 105/2.8 for all other subject with film or digital and much prefer it. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote: I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. It all depends on your subject and how much magnification you want. Case: I like shooting bugs at 1:1. 50mm 1:2 macro is not gonna get me there and the working distance is WAY to short. Therefore as my only macro lens, a ~100mm 1:1 lens makes sense because of the greater working distance. Even a 150-180-200mm 1:1 would be good for the extra working distance. Bugs fly away, 50mm lenses don't have enough working distance. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. your general one lens macro kit is general for what? Flowers? ok fine 50mm is great. But my general one lens macro kit is for bugs so 100mm is what I need. All I'm saying is that primary subject matter is more important in selecting the lens than your criteria about APS vs 35mm frame sizes. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
John Whittingham wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. jco Depends more on the subject matter IMHO, for repro work or working in a controlled environment the 50mm on film or 35mm on digital is fine. I find for living subjects, insects, plants and the like the longer lenses have a distinct advantage, allowing more distance betwen the photog and subject. I have the M 50/4 and used it for copy work and slide copying with bellows, but I use the Sigma EX 105/2.8 for all other subject with film or digital and much prefer it. I forgot to mention too that the longer focal lengths allow better control of the background due to the narrow angle of view which is a benefit for insect macros to avoid distracting background elements. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
The F lenses don't look green to me, more or less gray. Markus Maurer wrote: Of course your right about the different tastes Brian, do you use the F's on DSLR? I seem to have an aversion against green since my military service :-( greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Walters Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28 mm F series. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Shel What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good on a DSLR? greetings Markus -- Click to find great rates on medical insurance, save big, shop here http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJkon1IbDvM8ZGCmMZlcr7aoau4/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
they dont allow better control of the background when you WANT some more background do they? Thats what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases. It is not always desired to have the extreme telephoto effect. And even with the shorter lenses (50mm is NOT short in macro range on APS anyway) you can control background somewhat with DOF/aperture if needed. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:16 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses John Whittingham wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. jco Depends more on the subject matter IMHO, for repro work or working in a controlled environment the 50mm on film or 35mm on digital is fine. I find for living subjects, insects, plants and the like the longer lenses have a distinct advantage, allowing more distance betwen the photog and subject. I have the M 50/4 and used it for copy work and slide copying with bellows, but I use the Sigma EX 105/2.8 for all other subject with film or digital and much prefer it. I forgot to mention too that the longer focal lengths allow better control of the background due to the narrow angle of view which is a benefit for insect macros to avoid distracting background elements. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
When I say general macro, I mean to cover most macro situations as best as possible with only one lens. The longer lenses are great for isolating a VERY TINY subject and the longer working distance but they are just as bad for having to get TOO far away for larger objects, using at lower maginications, and are impossible to do wider angles when you want to get more of the background or surroundings in the frame, albeit out of focus to some extent. Also depending on your studio, and tabletop the really long lenses can force you to have to back up too far and into a wall. Like I said, if you can use multiple lenses are you much better off, but if you cant I would rather have only a 50mm for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by general purpose MACRO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:14 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. It all depends on your subject and how much magnification you want. Case: I like shooting bugs at 1:1. 50mm 1:2 macro is not gonna get me there and the working distance is WAY to short. Therefore as my only macro lens, a ~100mm 1:1 lens makes sense because of the greater working distance. Even a 150-180-200mm 1:1 would be good for the extra working distance. Bugs fly away, 50mm lenses don't have enough working distance. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. your general one lens macro kit is general for what? Flowers? ok fine 50mm is great. But my general one lens macro kit is for bugs so 100mm is what I need. All I'm saying is that primary subject matter is more important in selecting the lens than your criteria about APS vs 35mm frame sizes. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote: I would rather have only a 50mm for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by general purpose MACRO. And I would rather have only a 100mm macro for APS-sized digital for my general purpose macro. So really it is personal preference based on what subject you generally shoot. I shoot bugs, so I like the 100mm for working distance. The trade-off is that I need to back up to shoot larger objects. You like the closer working distance of a 50mm, your trade-off is that you have to get really close to smaller subjects. Everything in photography is a compromise. You make your choices based on what you need it for the most and use it as best you can for other subjects. So my point, is that you are not right in your assessment that 50mm is better for general macro and at the same time I am not right that 100mm is better for general macro. Each is right for our purposes. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote: they dont allow better control of the background when you WANT some more background do they? Thats what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases. Of course, I agree with that. I use wide angles a lot for flower macros. It is not always desired to have the extreme telephoto effect. And even with the shorter lenses (50mm is NOT short in macro range on APS anyway) I have a 500mm and use a 300mm for butterfly closeups. 50mm is short. :-) you can control background somewhat with DOF/aperture if needed. Of course. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Christian Subject: Re: Macro Lenses FF wrote: they dont allow better control of the background when you WANT some more background do they? Thats what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases. Of course, I agree with that. I use wide angles a lot for flower macros. It is not always desired to have the extreme telephoto effect. And even with the shorter lenses (50mm is NOT short in macro range on APS anyway) I have a 500mm and use a 300mm for butterfly closeups. 50mm is short. :-) I impression from the original post was that the person was looking more for an inexpensive general purpose macro than anything else. My experience to date is that the 50mm focal length isn't really long enough to be considered a general purpose focal length for macro, even with the shorter focal lengths used on our DSLR cameras. Hence my recomendation for something in the 90-100mm range. Overall, it will be more useful more often than a 50mm focal length, judging from my experience so far. With most of the macro work I have done, it has been desirable to limit the amount of background to avoid distractions, most of the time, I have wanted the longer FL to do this, and even when a shorter lens would have been ideal, I've been able to make the longer lens work. More often, the longer FL will provide more use than the shorter one. A normal 50mm lens (either a 1.4 or 1.7) with extension tubes is also a good option, as I mentioned earlier, since it gives a good fast, short telephoto for portaiture or when a little more reach is wanted, with the ability to do close up work if the 90-100mm lens is too long. What this gives the photographer is an excellent general purpose telephoto with a somewhat compromised but still very useful macro lens. I've done quite a bit of close up work this way (standard FL on extension tubes), and have never had a problem with sharpness or linear distortion issues, providing the lens isn't showing these problems under normal circumstances. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Walter Hamler wrote: Thanks for all the various inputs on the Macro question. You all gave me a lot to think about. I just talked to the folks at BH, and they would have had to order the AF version of the Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 macro (same lens as the Pentax 100 f/3.5 that is discontinued), BUT, they have the MF version in stock. So, for 125.00 shipped, it is on its way. If for some reason I am unhappy with it, I can probably sell for pretty close to that price and continue the quest. However, having seen results on the lens posted on the web I think I will like it. So, the flowers and bugs on GFM are on my list!! For shooting macro at GFM you don't really need to bring any lens at all: You can usually borrow whatever you need :) Personally, since I do the majority of my macro shooting in the field, I love using a zoom because it lets me, well, zoom; no futzing around with moving the tripod forward an inch or two or three, etc. (Yes, I know about macro focusing rails, but I'm trying to carry *less* gear, not more.) My old Vivitar 70-210 Series 1 goes to 1:2.5 by itself and around 1:1 with a 2-element achromatic diopter lens. Not as sharp as my Pentax F100/2.8 macro, but I usually end up shooting at small apertures where diffraction is the main limit on sharpness. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Walter Hamler wrote: I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt Walter, I love love love the 100mm f/4 pentax smc even though I'm pretty much in digital mode, I don't think I can part with it I still have a working LX - or I'd offer it to you. It is a really sharp lens and a joy to focus with. Get one. :) ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general, its very limited to only smaller objects at higher. I am talking about doing everything you can do with a macro lens thats better than using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: I would rather have only a 50mm for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by general purpose MACRO. And I would rather have only a 100mm macro for APS-sized digital for my general purpose macro. So really it is personal preference based on what subject you generally shoot. I shoot bugs, so I like the 100mm for working distance. The trade-off is that I need to back up to shoot larger objects. You like the closer working distance of a 50mm, your trade-off is that you have to get really close to smaller subjects. Everything in photography is a compromise. You make your choices based on what you need it for the most and use it as best you can for other subjects. So my point, is that you are not right in your assessment that 50mm is better for general macro and at the same time I am not right that 100mm is better for general macro. Each is right for our purposes. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Nope, 50mm is never short on APS, its already way past normal even at infinity and at 1:1, its three times the lenght of a normal lens at infinity. short lenses by my defintion would havet be wide or at least normal length and on APS 50mm is NOT. Regarding using longer lenses, I am not saying they are not useful for some things, 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. 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. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: they dont allow better control of the background when you WANT some more background do they? Thats what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases. Of course, I agree with that. I use wide angles a lot for flower macros. It is not always desired to have the extreme telephoto effect. And even with the shorter lenses (50mm is NOT short in macro range on APS anyway) I have a 500mm and use a 300mm for butterfly closeups. 50mm is short. :-) you can control background somewhat with DOF/aperture if needed. Of course. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
nearly all zooms will have some geometry problems that true prime macros dont, and with a zoom its even HARDER to remove the geometry distortion in digital post processing than a prime non-macro lens discussed earlier. I would never recommend zooms for macro unless you dont want the best quality. The extra lens elements in a zoom increase flare too. Its not just about sharpness, the flare and geometry issues matter too. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Walter Hamler wrote: Thanks for all the various inputs on the Macro question. You all gave me a lot to think about. I just talked to the folks at BH, and they would have had to order the AF version of the Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 macro (same lens as the Pentax 100 f/3.5 that is discontinued), BUT, they have the MF version in stock. So, for 125.00 shipped, it is on its way. If for some reason I am unhappy with it, I can probably sell for pretty close to that price and continue the quest. However, having seen results on the lens posted on the web I think I will like it. So, the flowers and bugs on GFM are on my list!! For shooting macro at GFM you don't really need to bring any lens at all: You can usually borrow whatever you need :) Personally, since I do the majority of my macro shooting in the field, I love using a zoom because it lets me, well, zoom; no futzing around with moving the tripod forward an inch or two or three, etc. (Yes, I know about macro focusing rails, but I'm trying to carry *less* gear, not more.) My old Vivitar 70-210 Series 1 goes to 1:2.5 by itself and around 1:1 with a 2-element achromatic diopter lens. Not as sharp as my Pentax F100/2.8 macro, but I usually end up shooting at small apertures where diffraction is the main limit on sharpness. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote: NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general, its very limited to only smaller objects at higher. I am talking about doing everything you can do with a macro lens thats better than using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all. jco I CAN do more than just smaller objects with a 100mm macro lens. Can you describe a general use that a 100mm can't do and a 50mm can? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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
RE: Macro Lenses
yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more normal AOV ) from a different, closer point of view than the really long macro's extremely narrow AOV from more distant POVs. The shorter than super long Macro lens usage is essentially very different and used for same reasons as non macro lenses. This is why for non macro usage 50mm lenses are considered normal / general purpose and 90-105mm lenses are NOT. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:46 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general, its very limited to only smaller objects at higher. I am talking about doing everything you can do with a macro lens thats better than using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all. jco I CAN do more than just smaller objects with a 100mm macro lens. Can you describe a general use that a 100mm can't do and a 50mm can? -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
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
Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote: yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more normal AOV ) from a different, closer point of view than the really long macro's extremely narrow AOV from more distant POVs. Sounds like a specialist kind of purpose (kinda like what you called my specialist purpose of LIMITING AOV or photographing very small objects). -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:40:40 -0400, Christian wrote 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. Yes the Sigma works really well giving 1:3, it's a varifocal and is 180mm @ closest focusing IIRC. I've also had good results with A 70-210 giving 1:4. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:44 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote 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. The Sigma 300/4 APO is, you don't experiment enough John. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote: I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses, however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the *ist D. 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. The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon doesn't say macro on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. 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. And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a longer working distance is a better choice. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
If your just looking for use at GFM, i, like John stated, like the 70-210, which i will bring, along with the 100 F2.8 and my Tamron, Nikon mount, 90 macro. You can borrow one if you like. I'll probably use the Tamron. Dave On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes the Sigma works really well giving 1:3, it's a varifocal and is 180mm @ closest focusing IIRC. I've also had good results with A 70-210 giving 1:4. John -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I love the Tamron 90 SP Macro. Marnie aka Doe BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
nope, the 50mm's AOV I am talking is much closer to normal than the very narrow AOV the longer lenses give which is sometimes reffered to as a telephoto compression effect because the POV is very far away relative to the subject size. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:29 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more normal AOV ) from a different, closer point of view than the really long macro's extremely narrow AOV from more distant POVs. Sounds like a specialist kind of purpose (kinda like what you called my specialist purpose of LIMITING AOV or photographing very small objects). -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not going to perform as well as non-telephoto dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason why 50mm may be a better choice on APS format because the 50mm macro lenses are not telephotos... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:44 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote 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. The Sigma 300/4 APO is, you don't experiment enough John. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Just because a lens is marked MACRO doesnt mean its a true MACRO lens. Telephoto lenses are not going to be as good as non telephoto lenses at same optical and build quality. I think there is some misunderstanding or disagreement on what a true macro lens is. IMHO, its a lens OPTIMIZED for higher magnications with minimum geometric distortion. Lenses that are just marked macro or can do high magnifications but are not optimized for those higher magnifications are NOT true macro lenses IMHO. Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l. ON APS gives much better working distances than it did on on 35mm FF format for same subject framing. This is because you dont have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill the frame on APS as you did on FF 35mm. I really like the 50mm F.L. MACRO on APS. I have longer macro lenses too, a 90mm Macro, and a 135mm Macro, but on APS I actually have wished for a 35mm macro instead recently which I don't have. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses, however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the *ist D. 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. The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon doesn't say macro on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. 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. And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a longer working distance is a better choice. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
Ditto. Simply superb lens. If it was an f2 it would be perfect (I could replace my 85 with it then) but without that it still is one of the best lenses I've owned. -Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love the Tamron 90 SP Macro. Marnie aka Doe BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:48:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not going to perform as well as non-telephoto dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason why 50mm may be a better choice on APS format because the 50mm macro lenses are not telephotos... jco What makes you think the Sigma 300/4 APO is a telephoto lens 8) John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:58:01 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l. ON APS gives much better working distances than it did on on 35mm FF format for same subject framing. This is because you dont have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill the frame on APS as you did on FF 35mm. But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
there are at least two, possibly three Tamron SP 90mm macros for pentax. I have the F2.5 version with 55mm filter threads in adaptall2 and yes, it's really really good. Works fine with both ES M42 mount or PKA mount. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:10 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Ditto. Simply superb lens. If it was an f2 it would be perfect (I could replace my 85 with it then) but without that it still is one of the best lenses I've owned. -Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love the Tamron 90 SP Macro. Marnie aka Doe BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
because nearly all lenses over 135mm f.l. for the 35mm/aps format are since the 1960's to keep the bulk down, even many so called macros, some of them are even pseudo-zoom telephotos. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:48:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not going to perform as well as non-telephoto dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason why 50mm may be a better choice on APS format because the 50mm macro lenses are not telephotos... jco What makes you think the Sigma 300/4 APO is a telephoto lens 8) John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
Traditionally Macro started at 1:2. lots of lenses that were only close focusing 1:4 were labeled as macro however. Christian wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses, however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the *ist D. 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. The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon doesn't say macro on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. 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. And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a longer working distance is a better choice. -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:43:12 -0400, Walter Hamler wrote I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt Both the ones you've mentioned are good, I'd be tempted to go for the Pentax A, the Sigma is an older model I've never used. Also worth consideration is the Tamron 90mm, very well regarded. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Walter Hamler wrote: I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? What kind of magnification are you looking for? If you want 1:1 the Sigma 90 and Pentax A 100/4 only go to 1:2. For 1:1, the Pentax A 100/2.8, kiron 100/2.5 and Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 would be good choices. I had the Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 with the A setting. It is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
On 3/13/07, Walter Hamler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? I recenty bought a smc Takumar 50mm f/4 macro (1:2) with 50mm of extension tubes on the 'Bay. My calculations tell me that I should get 1.5:1 with that setup (at max extension). Should be fun to play with. I bought the set for $150 (original Asahi extensions with case and lens with case too). I was aching for the smc-T 100mm f/4 with extensions, but it went too high for my liking. Mike -- Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MichaelHamilton.ca -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I have few experience with macro lenses 'cos I only own two: * Tamron SP 70-210 3.5-4 Macro which is good but not really a macro lens (a zoom even macro will never be a really good macro lens imo) * Pentax FA 100/3.5 macro (really a Cosina lens). I find it good. It was veeery slow to ficus with the ist-d but is very acceptable with K10D. Would be good if there was a focus limiter. Very satisfied for the price I got it wihch was about 150 euros second hand. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Hi Walter, Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Tamron SP 90/2.5 ? Cheers, Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others are too long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are a little too hard to focus at 50mm. I have one ( SAM-A 50mm F2.8, I actually bought it for APS digital years ago before I even got APS digital because the price was right, and it works quite nicely on the istDS and I would imagine even better on a K10D as its so sharp in the macro range. I cant stress the 50mm strongly enough over 90-105mm if you only want one macro lens for APS. I often find even the 50mm too long, I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walter Hamler Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:43 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Macro Lenses I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
I agree with that - I've been using an early version of the 90 mm SP Tamron for years. It's excellent. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Walter, Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Tamron SP 90/2.5 ? Cheers, Peter -- Click for home mortgage, fast free, no lender fee, approval today http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJeuzcj8TjzpVfBftHEHa0xb9Ip/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the 90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro Takumar. I often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I want it with the 50. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others are too long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are a little too hard to focus at 50mm. I have one ( SAM-A 50mm F2.8, I actually bought it for APS digital years ago before I even got APS digital because the price was right, and it works quite nicely on the istDS and I would imagine even better on a K10D as its so sharp in the macro range. I cant stress the 50mm strongly enough over 90-105mm if you only want one macro lens for APS. I often find even the 50mm too long, I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walter Hamler Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:43 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Macro Lenses I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt -- Click for free info on human resource careers and make $150K/ year http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJdTD3YSriLIIQEtXsC7xg5FB94/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Brian Walters Subject: RE: Macro Lenses I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the 90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro Takumar. I often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I want it with the 50. I have macro lenses of 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. I had thought that the 50 would get more use with the smaller format, but in fact, I haven't used it yet on the digital. I am finding the A100/2.8 to be a gorgeous macro lens on the DSLR, and have chosen it or the FA200/4 macro every time over the 50mm. Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message - From: Walter Hamler Subject: Macro Lenses I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Macro lenses tend to be one of those things that it doesn't matter what you buy, it is going to be good. You could go for the Sigma for the brighter maximum aperture, but you could also look for a Tamron or Vivitar 90mm lens, both made macros in the f2.5-2.8 range. I'm not a real lover of Sigma lenses on general principals, but I have owned both Tamron and Vivitar macros and found them to be excellent. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I have the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. This is the first version with the optical adapter that brings it to 1:! and includes a tripod mount. It's an amazing lens with beautiful bokeh. You can probably find one for around $150 US. This is one of my favorite shots with that lens. It's right around 1:1. The flowers are snowdrops and are no bigger than a fingernail. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2220242 Paul On Mar 13, 2007, at 7:27 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Walter Hamler Subject: Macro Lenses I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Macro lenses tend to be one of those things that it doesn't matter what you buy, it is going to be good. You could go for the Sigma for the brighter maximum aperture, but you could also look for a Tamron or Vivitar 90mm lens, both made macros in the f2.5-2.8 range. I'm not a real lover of Sigma lenses on general principals, but I have owned both Tamron and Vivitar macros and found them to be excellent. William Robb -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Hi Walt the Tamron adaptall2 90mm 2.5 is indeed a good and well build macro lens but the bokeh of the Pentax A 50mm 2.8 macro is nicer. The old M42 Takumar 50mm F4 I own is really good as well, that's why I would go for a Pentax A 100mm one. A lenses have some adantages, I would not care about AF as well. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:43:12 -0400, Walter Hamler wrote I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt Both the ones you've mentioned are good, I'd be tempted to go for the Pentax A, the Sigma is an older model I've never used. Also worth consideration is the Tamron 90mm, very well regarded. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
I found an A50/2.8 Macro with perfect optics and a bit of finish wear from use at the local photo shop about a year and a half ago for $130. Excellent lens, works great, extemely sharp yet remarkably good rendering for general purpose use. Allows 1:2 without additions, add a 25mm extension tube to get 1:1 macro reproduction ratio. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
In my experience, none of the fast 50mm normal lenses are geometrically as linear when compared to 50mm dedicated macro lenses. this can be important at times and no matter what f-stop you shoot at it wont go away. Nowadays though you CAN correct a lot of that distortion stuff in post processing but if you dont want to bother with it at all and you do a lot of macro than a true macro is the way to go for better geometry and saved labor. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Hi Shel What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good on a DSLR? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
That's precisely my experience as well. I bought the 50 mm macro takumar at a good price thinking that it would be more use than my 90 mm Tamron on the DS. It hasn't worked out that way. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have macro lenses of 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. I had thought that the 50 would get more use with the smaller format, but in fact, I haven't used it yet on the digital. I am finding the A100/2.8 to be a gorgeous macro lens on the DSLR, and have chosen it or the FA200/4 macro every time over the 50mm. Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. William Robb -- Click to get 125% of your home's value, super fast, no lender fees http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJkv4QqnS0YZlgLpIG8j9mHjR9c/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:37:26PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That's odd - I've got one that claims to be a Pentax F 50mm/f1.7. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I've never seen a bad report on any macro lens. It seems to be something that is simple to design. Of course some are better than others. But I'm not familiar with any that won't give you good results. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet. jco - You are not alone. One is coming later this year: DA 35 F2.8 Macro Limited. Probably no aperture simulator. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. - The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3?). Then it was produced in K mount through, I believe, 1977. Anyway, it is reputed to have a flatter field at close focusing and to be better for copy work than the contemporaneous 50/1.4. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28 mm F series. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Shel What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good on a DSLR? greetings Markus -- Click to find great rates on medical insurance, save big, shop here http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJkon1IbDvM8ZGCmMZlcr7aoau4/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
Just ignore my last post. Misinformation I am tired, and was thinking of the 55 F1.8. But the 50 F1.7 did originate in 1977, and continued through M, A, F, and FA versions until it was terminated recently. Joe - The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3?). Then it was produced in K mount through, I believe, 1977. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
If you are using a DSLR it's tough to say. I use a Kiron 100mm f2.8 macro and it is outstanding on film - but has some Chromatic Aberration on the *ist-D and more on the K10D. You can correct for the CA to some degree in the RAW interpreter, but not 100%. I also see some CA using the M50 f4 for snow crystals - but in that case it actually works to the advantage of the shots. I don't see any CA in the A* 200 f4, or Sigma EX 50mm f2.8 - so if using a a DSLR my gut would be to look for a very well corrected lens. If using film- it does not seem to be a problem. - MCC Walter Hamler wrote: I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
try this: http://tinyurl.com/yvvekn (my apologies if i spoiled someone's bidding...) best, mishka On 3/13/07, Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never seen a bad report on any macro lens. It seems to be something that is simple to design. Of course some are better than others. But I'm not familiar with any that won't give you good results. Joe -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
I dont think pentax made any m42 lenses other than f1.4 IIRC. There were many other focal lengths and the 55mm was made in F1.8 but a Pentax 50mm F1.7 M42 lens? Never heard of that jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Tainter Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:37 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. - The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3?). Then it was produced in K mount through, I believe, 1977. Anyway, it is reputed to have a flatter field at close focusing and to be better for copy work than the contemporaneous 50/1.4. Joe -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
There was certainly an F50/1.7 ... I have a pristine box for one sitting on my stuff for sale pile. ;-) Godfrey On Mar 13, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
I think thats a bad recommendation, fast 50mm normal lenses do not perform anywhere even close (no pun) as Macro lenses in the high magnificaion ranges under say 1:10. They are optimized for infinity and speed, not closeup, and as such, dont do a very good job closeup with tubes. Many regular lenses have close focus limits built into the lens for a good reason, the reason is the performance of the lens goes to crapola when focussed closer. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses - Original Message - From: Brian Walters Subject: RE: Macro Lenses I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the 90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro Takumar. I often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I want it with the 50. I have macro lenses of 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. I had thought that the 50 would get more use with the smaller format, but in fact, I haven't used it yet on the digital. I am finding the A100/2.8 to be a gorgeous macro lens on the DSLR, and have chosen it or the FA200/4 macro every time over the 50mm. Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. William Robb -- 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
Re: Macro Lenses
try this: http://tinyurl.com/yvvekn (my apologies if i spoiled someone's bidding...) best, mishka - Well, that's interesting. I haven't heard of that make before. Is it a Chinese product? And don't worry, Mishka. I'll bet the seller has more than one. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
So - I did say that I wasn't sure if there was a 50/1.7 past the A series: ... but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:37:26PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That's odd - I've got one that claims to be a Pentax F 50mm/f1.7. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
So, what about it? I wasn't sure that there was a 50/1.7 past the A series, that's why I said I don't think there was ... Otherwise I'd have said that there wasn't a 50/1.7 made ... Shel Why in Hell should I have to Press 1 for English?!!! [Original Message] From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: 3/13/2007 5:01:56 PM Subject: RE: Macro Lenses Hi Shel What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good on a DSLR? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Macro Lenses
I kind of like the ugly military look of the early F lenses. The cameras they were designed for however... Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Shel What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good on a DSLR? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Macro Lenses
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Walters Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the 90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro Takumar. I often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I want it with the 50. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others are too long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are a little too hard to focus at 50mm. I have one ( SAM-A 50mm F2.8, I actually bought it for APS digital years ago before I even got APS digital because the price was right, and it works quite nicely on the istDS and I would imagine even better on a K10D as its so sharp in the macro range. I cant stress the 50mm strongly enough over 90-105mm if you only want one macro lens for APS. I often find even the 50mm too long, I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walter Hamler Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:43 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Macro Lenses I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt -- Click for free info on human resource careers and make $150K/ year http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJdTD3YSriLIIQEtXsC7xg5FB94/ -- 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Of course your right about the different tastes Brian, do you use the F's on DSLR? I seem to have an aversion against green since my military service :-( greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Walters Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28 mm F series. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Shel What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good on a DSLR? greetings Markus -- Click to find great rates on medical insurance, save big, shop here http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJkon1IbDvM8ZGCmMZlcr7aoau4/ -- 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
Re: Macro lenses
Hi, if i will get 100/3.5, I'll probably end up with 100/2.8 some day anyhow... I know myself. Our local Pentax dealer offered me all mentioned four for testing (I work for a local photo magazine time to time and therefore know those people). First I have to finish some urgent works and after that I'll probably will test those lenses... BR, Margus Mark Roberts wrote: Margus Männik wrote: the insect season is abot to begin... last yeaars I have used rather medium format for macro shots, but now there's a time to get good macro lens for my Z-1p. Sigma lens prices have lowered here lately (Pentax prices stand firm...). I want this lens also for normal photography, so the AF is needed. The cheap solution would be Pentax FA 100/3.5, but the 1:2 ratio is not satisfying for me. I know the Vivitar and Phoenix versions of this Cosina-built lens come with an adapter (close-up diopter) that enables it to go to 1:1 magnification. Doesn't Pentax include this? If not, it still ought to e available somewhere for very little money. FA100/2.8 is absolutely ok, but pricey. I have the F version, which is optically identical to the FA, and it is indeed superb. I did buy it second-hand, though. Sigma 105 Macro is about 1/3 cheaper, but what's about the performance and reliability ? Tamron 90mm - seems to be great optically, but has strange filter thread (55mm) and I do not like the handling. Market of used Pentax lenses is rather non-existing here and I do not want to buy lens like this without trying it first. I wouldn't worry too much about any of these from an optical standpoint. There are very few substandard macro lenses, largely because their specialized nature means they can be priced higher and this gives the designers much more freedom to go all-out for image quality. Truthfully, the reason I bought the Pentax 100/2.8 macro was its reputation for physical construction, rather than optical quality. The pentax is built like an tank and I've heard comments about all the others that they're a bit less ruggedly made. My equipment sometimes has to operate under adverse conditions (and get kicked about by me in the process!) so I paid a little extra for the build quality. I love the optics of the Pentax but wouldn't hesitate to use any of the others you mentioned. If you're really on a tight budget, look into getting the 1:1 attachment for the 100/3.5. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Macro lenses
The FA100/2.8 has appeared on eBay quite regularly so with a little patience, you might get a good price. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan the insect season is abot to begin... last yeaars I have used rather medium format for macro shots, but now there's a time to get good macro lens for my Z-1p. Sigma lens prices have lowered here lately (Pentax prices stand firm...). I want this lens also for normal photography, so the AF is needed. The cheap solution would be Pentax FA 100/3.5, but the 1:2 ratio is not satisfying for me. FA100/2.8 is absolutely ok, but pricey. Sigma 105 Macro is about 1/3 cheaper, but what's about the performance and reliability ? Tamron 90mm - seems to be great optically, but has strange filter thread (55mm) and I do not like the handling. Market of used Pentax lenses is rather non-existing here and I do not want to buy lens like this without trying it first. What should I do ? How big are the real differences between Tamron 90, Sigma 105 and Pentax FA100/2.8? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
