SLR Camera Macro Lens Question

mmbongo · #1 02-04-2011, 06:00 PM

Just looking for some clarification on getting a macro capable lens for my Pentax digital SLR. This seems very confusing.

What I want is a lens where I can get close ups of things like circuit boards, guitar strings, things like that.

I'm just not sure what exactly to look for. I've seen some lenses for $40, and some for $600. I'm no pro, so I can't really see spending over $100 for a macro lens.

So how bout some education on macro lenses? Thanks!

Kwesi · #2 02-04-2011, 07:44 PM

I'm a beginner myself but I'm guessing you're gonna have to spend over $100 to get a decent macro lens.

Here's Pentax's own:

http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/produc...p?T1=PTX+21730

A lot of Sigma's lens have the Macro designation but you want to research them because apparently they can be hit or miss on some lenses. And for a macro lens a lot of people seem to agree that you want close to or greater than 1x (1:1) maximum magnification.

Phil Smith · #3 02-04-2011, 07:52 PM

You can also use your existing lens and get some extension tubes which will enable to you to get a great level of manification. That combination won't be as good as a dedicated macro, but it will get the job done.

Kwesi · #4 02-04-2011, 08:01 PM

Keep in mind that if you go the extension tube route you'll decrease the amount of light you let into the lens and it's sounds like you want to do indoor stuff so you'll want to find a well lit area.

mmbongo · #5 02-04-2011, 08:05 PM

See I guess what confuses me is what exactly makes a macro lens a macro lens?

Case in point. This lens says 'macro lens'
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_500wt_1156
but it doesn't seem to be much different than the 28-80 zoom lens I already have...which does not do extreme closeups.

I sure won't be spending $700 for a lens. Not even an option. Especially since I've got another digital camera....a $100 Fuji...that does great macro. I just want to get macro that good as that with my DSLR.

warwick.hoy · #6 02-04-2011, 08:19 PM

The Pentax lens on ebay is a zoom lens (and not much of one at that) that will do closeups because it has a slightly extended focus range. I wouldn't call it a Macro Lens.

mmbongo · #7 02-04-2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warwick.hoy

The Pentax lens on ebay is a zoom lens (and not much of one at that) that will do closeups because it has a slightly extended focus range. I wouldn't call it a Macro Lens.

See that's what confuses me. It says 'macro' right on the lens.

Downunderwonder · #8 02-04-2011, 08:28 PM

There's "true" Macro lenses which are purpose built for focusing up close. Expensive.

Then there's telephoto lenses with "macro feature" which do some kind of bodge with shifting element(s) in macro mode so it will focus up close, not as close a proper Macro of the same focal length and without the light gathering of big aperture/low f number.

I've had decent results with a 35mm Nikon 35-105 zoom. I didn't buy it for the macro but some butterflies wanted photographing.

Just try one out in a store. Most stores are brightly lit from all angles. Plop your circuit board on the counter and see what you get.

Kwesi · #9 02-04-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmbongo

See I guess what confuses me is what exactly makes a macro lens a macro lens?

Case in point. This lens says 'macro lens'
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_500wt_1156
but it doesn't seem to be much different than the 28-80 zoom lens I already have...which does not do extreme closeups.

I sure won't be spending $700 for a lens. Not even an option. Especially since I've got another digital camera....a $100 Fuji...that does great macro. I just want to get macro that good as that with my DSLR.

The only thing that makes a macro lens any different from a regular lens is it's maximum magnification and shortest focusing distance. The former is greater than a "normal" lens and the later is smaller.

Bett · #10 02-04-2011, 09:01 PM

It might not work with your camera setup, but I've had much luck with a little Fujifilm digital camera and a 5X one of these...

I've taken close up images of little things, like a crack in the solder of a circuit board and pictures of insects and stuff and they've come out quite clear.
Maybe you can get a big jeweler's loupe or rig up some kind of magnifying glass for cheap. If it doesn't work well, then you won't have wasted much money and you can get yourself a proper lens.

Phil Smith · #11 02-04-2011, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwesi

Keep in mind that if you go the extension tube route you'll decrease the amount of light you let into the lens and it's sounds like you want to do indoor stuff so you'll want to find a well lit area.

Light isn't a problem if you have strobes, preferably off camera. Additionally since what he's shooting is in a controlled enviroment he can just mount the camera on a tripod and use a slower shutter speed to compensate.

Kwesi · #12 02-04-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

Light isn't a problem if you have strobes, preferably off camera. Additionally since what he's shooting is in a controlled enviroment he can just mount the camera on a tripod and use a slower shutter speed to compensate.

Both true, but I'd rather not work under the assumption someone has anything besides a tripod especially ince he said he's new to DSLRs.

DigMe · #13 02-05-2011, 05:48 AM

Good dSLR lenses cost money. Period. A $40 lens is likely to get you $40 image quality.

Your cheapest solution for this that will still get you the same image quality is an extension tube (google Kenko extension tube). As Kwesi mentioned you will lose some stops. Another relatively low cost option that should be decent is this Tamron lens:
http://www.adorama.com/TM70300DPXAF....m_source=gbase

bc

Cabazon · #14 02-05-2011, 06:28 AM

They make reversal rings for normal lenses, which allow you to mount a lens backwards, shifting the distance between the elements and sensor around, making it macro.
You can't do it with big lenses, because it mounts with the filter threads, but it's a whole lot cheaper than a good macro lens.

I really don't know about the specifics of it, but it's something you may want to look into.

mmbongo · #15 02-05-2011, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigMe

Good dSLR lenses cost money. Period. A $40 lens is likely to get you $40 image quality.

Your cheapest solution for this that will still get you the same image quality is an extension tube (google Kenko extension tube). As Kwesi mentioned you will lose some stops. Another relatively low cost option that should be decent is this Tamron lens:
http://www.adorama.com/TM70300DPXAF....m_source=gbase

bc

It says the minimum focus distance on that lens is 37". I assume that means it won't focus on anything 2" from the lens, such as my cheap digital camera does?

DigMe · #16 02-05-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmbongo

It says the minimum focus distance on that lens is 37". I assume that means it won't focus on anything 2" from the lens, such as my cheap digital camera does?

It's got a 300mm focal length, my man. You say that is if the lens must not be good because it doesn't do something that your cheap digital camera does. There are plenty of top-of-the-line lens that can't focus to 2 inches. Just like there are very expensive cameras that can't shoot at f/64 like your APS. It's simply the physics if lens and sensor size.

Bottom line though is the 300mm at 37 inches will be well beyond your Point-and-shoot at 2 inches. In fact on your dSLR's APS-c sensor it will probably be more like the equivalent of 400mm max focal length. I suspect that you would not be needing to zoom in to max focal length. A lot of people who shoot macro do not put the lens right up to the subject. That's just the paradigm you have because that's how you have to do it with your point and shoot.

I bet if you search Flickr you could probably find some macro examples that were taken with that lens.

bc

mmbongo · #17 02-05-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigMe

It's got a 300mm focal length, my man. You say that is if the lens must not be good because it doesn't do something that your cheap digital camera does.

bc

Wait now, I never said that lens wasn't good. Because guess what....that's the newer version of the lens I already have! Mine is 80-300.

What I'm looking for is something that will focus very close...say 2" from the subject and that one says it's minimum is 34". Not really practical for taking some close up shots.

As far as the cheap digital camera...I guess I'm saying that a cheap $100 digital camera will do what I want...why won't a good $100 lens?

DigMe · #18 02-05-2011, 12:31 PM

I'm saying that you put your APS camera 2" from, say, a dragonfly and you will still not have an equivalent macro ability that you would have with this lens at 4 feet. In fact it would be impossible because the dragonfly would fly away before you could yen the APS within 2 feet much less 2 inches. It sounds from your post that you are still thinking inside of the APS macro paradigm. Macro photography can take place from far away. Macro photography doesn't mean putting your camera 2 inches from something. It means taking pictures that show closeup details of things whether it be a bird's eye or a ladybug.

Can I ask why you want to put the lens 2 inches away? Why is it a requirement for you to put the subject so close to the lens when you can get equivalent or better and closer detail but with better image quality without having to get so close? Also, what are you shooting macro shots of?

bc

DigMe · #19 02-05-2011, 12:37 PM

Did you search Flickr for Tamron 70-300 macro? You'll see a lot of closeup shots of bugs and flowers and whatnot that should give you and idea about whether this lens will meet your needs

bc

mmbongo · #20 02-05-2011, 02:44 PM

This is not for outdoor shots of bugs and stuff, I already use my 80-300 lens for that.

This would be used for indoor shots of circuit boards, guitar wiring, and some things at my work where it's impossible to shoot from 4 feet away.

Also looking at doing some stop motion animation using photographs. Not impossible to shoot from far away, but it is impractical in my studio.