Macro lenses

[ewanbirse]

Hi Guys,

 

I recently purchased a new lens for my Pentax ME-Super and am really pleased with it, though still to see

the actual results on print. It has a macro function and I really like getting in close to things and

expanding my range of subject material. So, I now want a macro lens! Do any of you have any experience

or knowledge of the following lenses (chosen simply because they are what is currently available on my

local dealers website for Pentax compatibility):

 

Sigma 50mm F2.8 Macro

 

Tamron 90mm F2.5 SP Macro

 

Vivitar 35-105mm F3.5 MC Macro

 

I never even considered looking into macro photography until a few days ago and now have the macro

bug. Any other recommendations for lenses and opinions about macro photography would be much

appreciated.

[stemked]

Ewan,

 

I have used a number of macro lenses and can comment on them. But first it is helpful to know what your macro interests are. A 50mm macro is a VERY different lens than a 90-100mm macro. You have to get a lot closer for the 50mm for macro features so if you are interests are insects you can generally forget it.

 

So for macro subjects

 

50mm macro-best for static objects like flowers, coins, etc.

 

90-100mm macro- most everything, generally tighter perspective than 50mm, but still a little close for many animals

 

180-200mm-best for animals, but often very expensive.

 

As to the lenses you have listed the only I have a lot of experience is the Tamron 90mm f2.5, which is my wife's macro lens. It is wonderful; inexpensive for a macro lens, she has many stunning and several award winning images with the lens. It goes to 1:1 (I think, need to check). One nice thing is that it uses 49mm filters like many other Pentax lenses if you use filters a lot. It has great manual focus feel, just a tad heavy, but that's generally true of macro lenses.

 

The Vivitar 35-105 I doubt is a true macro lens (although I maybe in error). A true macro lens not only focuses closely but is also optically corrected so the edges are in focus as is the center on close focusing.

 

I can't comment on the Sigma lens only to say that it is a 50mm lens and depending on your needs may not fit your needs.

 

Beyond the lenses you have listed I can offer comments on the Pentax 50mm f2.8 F, 100mm f4 A, 100mm f4 M, and 200mm f4 A if you have any questions about those lenses.

[andrewg_ny]

I am guessing that the Vivitar 35-105 is not a true 1:1 macro but is a more like the close-focus feature on your current new (but unidentified) lens. You will not go too wrong with any current 50mm or 90-105mm macro lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, or Pentax. You don't mention what you are shooting, but when I bought my macro lens (Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro) I chose it over the 50mm for its increased working distance from the subject--the 50mm would require being that much closer to that insect. Another opinion is that AF is not all that important for macro work so you might also opt for a manual focus lens if it suits your budget or other sensibilities better.

[ewanbirse]

I'm not sure what I want to shoot just yet, though I've been getting close to lots of flowers

lately and that is my current focus. I'm guessing I want something more in the range of 100

or 200mm rather than 50mm so I can get as close as I can, depending on what I happen to

be shooting at the time. And I would always go for a manual lens!

[User_502260]

I have a Sigma 50/2.8 macro lens. It is a manual focus lens in Canon FD mount, which goes to 1:1 without an extra tube. I only took a few shots with it but it seems OK. I also have the second version of the 90/2.5 Tamron SP. This is an excellent lens and I have adapters for many mounts for it. Vivitar made more than one 35-105 zoom. Mine is the TX version with interchangeable mounts and a fixed aperture of f/3.5. This is a fairly large and heavy lens but with decent performance if it is in good condition. I wouldn't rely on the macro or close-up range of this lens to be anywhere near as good as the Tamron.

[godfrey]

Before you buy equipment, buy and read John Shaw's excellent "Closeups In Nature". That

should save you a lot of time figuring out what equipment will do what.

 

For the record, I use a Pentax A50/2.8 Macro, coupled occasionally with a Pentax Rear

Converter 2x-S, for macro work with the DSLR bodies. It works very well and the two together

cost me about $200 total, used.

 

Godfrey

[personalphotos]

I realize this thread was for a film body but was wondering if the macro ratios change on a digital. If a 100mm lens in 35mm equals 150mm on a Pentax Digital. Would a 1:1, 1x (35mm) equal 1.5x on a digital?

[andrewg_ny]

Ewan: whether you choose a 50mm or 100mm, in either case you will acheive the same 1:1 magnification--that is, when focussing at minimum distance, the subject will be life size on the film/sensor. Typically a zoom with a close-focusing 'Macro' feature will magnify up to 1:4 or 1:3. If you want magnification higher than 1:1 you will probably want to consider using extension tubes or a reversed lens (possibly in combination with one of these dedicated macro lenses).

 

There is much to read on the subject, but most likely for natural subjects you'll appreciate the extra working distance of a 90-105mm macro rather than a 50mm macro. The 50mm is more requently used for copy stands, coin collections, and commercial photography where close working distance is acceptable. The longer working distance of a 100mm helps to avoid startling skittish critters and may also allow for a little more flexibility in lighting your subject.

 

To answer Peter's question (I think I'm right about this), the magnification is still the same--but the field of view is smaller so to shoot the same scene with APS-C digital you would need to be further away with lower magnification applied.

[godfrey]

Peter,

 

Trying to say this precisely:

 

Magnification and focal length stay the same, regardless of format. What changes is field

of view.

 

So if you set a macro lens to 1:1 magnification on a Pentax DSLR, what you're going to get

is an imaged field 16x24 mm in size in your capture. That same lens fitted to a Pentax film

SLR and also set to 1:1 magnification will give you an imaged field 24x36 mm in size.

 

Godfrey

[jeffpolaski]

You just missed a Lester Dine 105mm f/2.8 on eBay that went for a shade over $300. Equivilent would be the Kiron labeled les with those specs. Little known, they are excellent -- the Dine lens was relabeled for dental closeup work.

[markku_ylilammi]

You have already got a lot of good answers. I just want to emphasize the importance of the focal length. Its only effect is the shooting distance, but it is all important in macro photography.

 

Short (50 mm) lenses force you close to the subject (100 mm for 1:1 magnification). This easily creates shadows and living creatures fly away.

 

Long (200 mm) lenses are large and heavy and expensive.

 

Medium telephoto (100 mm) is often the best compromise. There is no large difference between digital and film (factor 1.5) but the smaller image size in DSLR helps in macro photography.

[donnie_strickland]

I have the Tamron -- it's an excellent lens.

[jon_shiu]

Hi, I've used the 100mm f3.5 Vivitar Macro lens and it is a good lens that focuses to 1:2. It comes with an adapter to go to 1:1

 

Jon

[ewanbirse]

Thanks for all the assistance guys, I like the sound of the Tamron from what I've heard here,

and also online over the past few days. And the focal length seems to be the best

compromise. I might wait and see what else my dealer gets in, but if nothing else appears

soon then I reckon that'll be the one I go for.

[charlie_chan2]

Tamron's a very good lens for the money.

 

Charlie

[jordan2240]

Ewan,

 

Don't know if it's still made, but I have the Sigma 105mm ex macro, and it is an excellent lens that has received a lot of praise. I'm not much of a photographer, but it seems to work fine in my experience. In reference to Shaw's "Close-ups In Nature" previously mentioned, I believe he states in it that, if he had to choose just one lens, it would be a 105mm. Not sure if that advice still applies to digital though.

[sonbou_abc]

I made a mistake buying (6 months ago)

 

Pentax D-FA 50 f/2.8 Macro Auto Focus Lens,

 

because what I want is to take pictures of insects.

 

I have "never" used and I'm thinking to change it for a 180mm macro.

[chepas_nigs]

I had two versions of the Tamron 90mm (one is f2.5 adaptall and the later Di series). I took these series of shots - might interest you.<div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

I do not see where the same principle does not apply for macro as it does for telephoto as to 1.53X factor. It is a crop in either case. Shooting-distance being the same. Magnification is the same- but you wind up with a crop and a larger image size in the frame. So the question is, since the resulting image size of 100mm compares to that of 150mm on full frame, using tele, what would the resulting image size compare to when using macro 1:1??

[rachel_sekely]

I also have the ME-Super and my favorite macro lens for it is my Macro-Takumar 1:4 50mm. According to this site it is the only one which offers 1:1 life size magnification.

http://www.pbase.com/dang/50f4