180 or 200 mm macro lenses

I've been a Pentax user for more years than I care to remember, but I'm really disappointed that there is no replacement for the manual focus 200 mm macro lens, either from Pentax or Sigma. The longer focal length lens offers the photographer so much with regards to wildlife photography. Not only are you able to work further away from your subject, which is essential when photographing insects, but it also gives you a narrower field of acceptance which allows for more diffuse backgrounds and is ideal of flower portraits etc. What is particularly disappointing is that all the other main camera manufacturers offer a macro lens within this range. I certainly do not wish to change my system, but I'm seriously considering that it may become necessary if Pentax or Sigma aren't able to come up with the goods.

Fair enough, although I presume you were using film originally? If that's the case, you actually need a 135mm macro lens now to give the same field of view that you used to have. The 100mm macro comes close, giving an equivalent to 150mm on film.

However, I find that the 55-300mm lens actually covers flower portraits very well. Stopped down to f/11 or f/16 it's ideal and I've never felt the need for it to be a macro lens. If it were, going closer would only mean parts of a flower were shot, whereas for a portrait the minimum focus of the 55-300mm is more than close enough.

I'm not sure that a 200mm macro is a very likely thing in the foreseeable future and it would indeed be very expensive if it did arrive. Perhaps a second hand 200mm macro or a 180mm from some other maker might be close enough?

I have been using a DFA 100mm and a Tamron SP90mm 72b with a Kenko 1.5x converter and the results are more than acceptable and gives a good working distance.

Likewise I use the 1.7x adapter with my macro lenses. Gives excellent results.

I concur with John - when I've used the 55-300 for flower shots I've always been impressed.

Yep - the 55-300 even at maximum aperture produces some lovely flower photos, it captures a good deal of detail and lovely colours.

This is a crop of a shot at 300mm on f5.8, no PP sharpening....

I feel for the OP.

Zoom lenses and primes with T/Cs may give "acceptabe" quality, but the original Pentax 200 mm macro was on a wholly different plane.

Unfortunately, as JR says, there is little prospect of a replacement any time soon. The fact that Sigma hasn't issued one in K-mount suggests it sees little demand.

However, the older Pentax 200s do come up on Ebay from time to time, and at prices which, whilst litle short of stratospheric, are probably no more than a new one would cost, were Pentax to sell one.

So, raid the piggy bank and keep an eye on Ebay.

G

Just one question, OP. How come you have survived this long without a 200mm? Or have you only recently come to macro photography?

If so, you will find that many people prefer manual focus over AF, and there are a variety of MF lenses around 180-200 in K-mount.

G

I find the 10- 135mm DA WR better than the 55-300mm for 'close up' due to its constant 40cm min focus distance. I like to use old 50mm manual lenses with extension tubes for the really close stuff.

The SMCP-FA* 200mm Macro lens was my holy grail for many years. When they became available I needed a mortgage to buy one, so I gave up.

Instead I bought a new Sigma 180mm 1:3.5 lens from SRS and I have to say it's awesome. If you can find somebody willing (daft enough) to sell one, go for it, you'll not regret it.

The affordable one (probably around £800.00) doesn't have optical stabilization (OS), but for macro, you don't need it. The later ones that do have OS are not available in Pentax K mount, and probably never will be.

Just about to put my A* 200mm Macro up in the classifieds!

Stop it ! ! !

My LBA is cured . . . . well, maybe only in relapse for now.

I got very lucky a year or so ago on eBay and came across a Sigma 180mm 1:2 f2.8 macro lens. It dates from about 1980 ish, weighs about 1kg and a team of wild horses ... etc. etc.

What a beauty of a capture [newly emerged goldenring perhaps? as I've never seen one I'm only guessing], well done. I agree with the op, it would be nice to have an option of a 180-200 macro lens. I sometimes use the 1.7x conv with my tamron 90 macro as a stand in or extension tubes with my fa★300 4.5 but still think a native 180-200 macro lens would be best.

There is an A* 200 for sale in the classifieds!!!
Drool city