50 MM Macro on a Reversing Ring

Hello Everyone,

A while back, I asked if it was worth reversing a Macro lens when using extension tubes and/or bellows. The answer was a resounding yes.
So, I put on the reversing ring and thought I'd start out modestly by just mounting the lens on the camera at first to see if I could notice a difference in brightness of image.
Holy Moly! I don't have much of an idea yet by what factor, but the MAGNIFICATION! It's like I had put on a bunch of tubes.
I guess it's because Macro lenses have all their glass at one end (closest to the film) with a great long, hollow, empty front end. When the lens is reversed, this empty front end becomes the equivalent of a tube.
I didn't notice much-if-any change in magnification when turning the focusing ring which elongates the lens body. How come?
I haven't had much time to play any further as my "table top" area has been usurped by a paying project (I build wooden kayaks), but the minute I'm able, I'm goin' for MICRO on a bellows!

WOW!

Hi Mac,
The magnification depends on the subject lens distance and not the position of the focus.

Kim

Kim,

Thanks as usual!

A while ago, I think it was John who asked the old "If you only had one lens...." question.

At that point I was in love with a 1:1.4 50mm or a 1:2.5 135mm.

If asked now, I'd go with a 1:4 50mm S.M.C. Macro and a reversing ring as an accessory. These things are so versatile, and the quality is amazing.

I'm going to try a 2X extender as well, to see how good it is at the other extreem. It'll be slow for sure.

I'll also be looking for a 100mm Macro. I assume (there I go again) that it's just as fantastic?

Oohhh this is fun!

The best Pentax macro is 200mm. Price tag to match.
Second, probably, is 100mm.
Third, 50mm.

IMHO.

G

George,

There's a 200 MACRO!?!?!?!

This I've never seen. And I thought the 100 was rare!

Was this available in M42?

Just when I get Christmas paid off, along comes George with another tasty treat.

Sigh

Mac,

I don't know if a 200mm macro was available in M42, but there have been two K-mount 200mm macros, and both are regarded as being at the very pinnacle of lens design and performance.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that they are rare as hens teeth, with prices to match. I've never paid £500 for a lens, but these go for nearer £1,000 or more (that's over Can$2,000).

You may recall that when I said my lens-buying career was over (for this year), the major exception was "either of the two SMCP-FA* 200mm lenses". One of these, of course, is the 1:4 macro.

This focal length is now the only serious gap in my lens line-up. I have the M 200mm, of course, and the F 70-210 zoom, of course. The former is OK, the latter excellent, (and they cost me very little) but both the FA* 200s are reportedly no less than magnificent (as are the A* 1:4 200mm macro and A* 1:2.8 200mm).

I've built my lens collection pretty cheaply (thanks largely to Ebay), with just the occasional splurge for a Limited lens or the F* 1:4.5 300mm, and of course the 12-24 which I haven't yet had a chance to try out. But the good 200mm lenses are in a different league, and so far when I've seen one for sale I haven't been able to raise the funds.

But one day!

G

Geeze, George.

If you paid a thousand pounds for a lens, would you take it out and use it in the field? I'd want to take it in the kayak to photograph wildlife in the rain etc. I'd be so nervous I'd drop the whole kit in the lake.

I have a beat-up - but Eric Hendrickson restored - Spotmatic F for just such forays into the wild blue so I can relax and enjoy the shoot, but with a lens like that I'd fumble it for sure.

So, I'm kind of hoping there ISN'T an M42 version of the 200, and I can be content with a ugly but functioning 100 (which is hard enough to find).

I really wish you well in this quest - it must be a thrill to own the difinitive best of anything.

Now get out there and review that 12-24!

Best,

Make sure you're properly insured for such loss then it's not such a big problem.

I used to have an MX and 40mm F2.8 for carrying in situations where damage was a distinct possibility (such as climbing or off-road motorcycle riding) but I changed to carrying a digital point and shoot because the pics were mainly for web use.

Absolutely. While I'm raising the funds it'd be useful to know whether I should get the Sigma 10-20 or save longer and get the Pentax 12-24.

No doubt in my mind. Save a little longer and get the Pentax. Or dust off the credit card....

Hi Mac,
There wasn't a 200 for M42. To be honest, you would be better off with the normal SMC 200/4 Tak which are reasonabley priced. Pentax stopped producing many of the long primes in AF as there was a general move to zooms. However, many found out that primes still give better results. As there was a 100/2.8 macro and a 200/4 macro, normal primes of this range were never produced as you could use the macro with the focus lock in place instead. Because of this they are sought after so much. The 200 macro won't give any greater magnification than a 50 or a 100. Indeed because of the length of tube required, they tend to be impractical over about 2x lifesize. The big advantage is that you can work further away from the subject. Apart from Macro the 200/4 SMC Tak wil give you results that are not that much different for normal use.

Kim

There most certainly is a normal 200mm tele in AF - the 1:2.8.

G

I must admit I had forgotten about this one I was thinking "normal" priced teles rather than the super fast, super expensive ones. I think I will stay with my 200/2.5

Mac as usual i love reading your posts.
I've done a little kayaking and have some shots from a local event for our local rowing club. I posted elswhere about using a 5 gal pail for a waterproof case that should be usable for you. Also you know that a step up ring and uv filter cand be used with a ziplock freezer bag to make a dunkproof camera case. Here's how:
Get a ziplock bag big eonough to hold your camera/ lens combo. Carefully screw the step up to the filter with the filter outside of bag and stepup inside to mark a hole in the bag.
Unscrew it and apply a little aquariun silicone glue to the threads of each and reassemble with hole cut in bag(leave a little extra, no vinetting should occur because of the step up ring. use rubber bands and or duct tape ro hold any loose bag to the lens barrel and make it easier to zoom the lens and focus (you are at a disavantage here as compared to af/auto everything camers here, but can unzip the bag to get at controls and zip back up for protection)).
I am reminded of one occasion where I guided a group of fishermen in the Arctic. Had fog for four days so thick you couldn't see the guy at the front of a fourteen ft boat. I left my camera at the cabin one morning. Big mistake. (here's where the "one that got away story differs between drunk fishermen and drunk photogs)
The glaciers had cut the landscape along this penensula leaving cliff on one side and gentle slopes on the other. Not being able to see, I merley folllowed the cliff to the point turned around and worked my way back to camp. As we neared the point near the open waters of great slave lake, A small opening in the fog appeared.
There on a cliff edge not more than twenty yards from us, sat a Bald eagle.
A stream of sunlight breaking through the fog, rimlighting him as he sat there with his wings spread wide open trying to dry in the light.
As the sun was behind him we saw a rainbow, a 360 degree circle of colored light that in some parts around here is refered to as Angel Fire.
I'd've trashed twenty cameras for that shot.
javascript:emoticon('')
Equipment is replacable, a moment in time is gone forever.

I appreciate the sentiment however the Sigma is wider and cheaper and there are stories that the Pentax is a rebadged 3rd party lens anyway. I'm not totally tied to Pentax lenses over others anyway and in fact I've had more poor Pentax lenses (e.g. 18-55 kit lens, FA 28-80, FA100-300) than I have poor 3rd party ones.

Don,

You broke my heart with the missed eagle shot.

I had a similar, though not nearly so spectacular miss on my last paddle a week ago here on the Saint Laurence river. It was very damp, chilly and threatening rain, so I left all picture-taking gear at home. (I've very unwisely rid myself of any non-Pentax junk). Besides, what am I gonna see in January, right?

How about a gigantic bull moose swimming between islands? Aquatic life is much less disturbed by a wooden kayak than any other vessel. I think it's because we're so low in the water and present such a small profile. Also, who'd be scared of half a man?

Anyway, I got close enough that I could have touched an antler if I'd wanted, and was looking him straight in the eye. I stayed with him for a few minutes to burn his image into my ISO 1 brain while I chanted some blue-tinged mantra about what a fine photographer I was to purposly leave any and all equipment on shore.

I will certaily set up a rain proof rig a-la Don. I just happen to have a step-up ring with appropriate Sky filter. I'm heading to COSTCO for some film developing anyway, and will look for big freezer bags.

Sorry that they probably won't be Asahi Pentax - probably didn't even have Zip Locs back in the day, and even if - the seals would be shot. I just can't aford to have Eric Hendrickson working on bag seals.

'Course, being a good Possom Lodge member, I've already got the Handy Man's Secret Weapon by the roll.

Thank's for the tip - and all future great shots!

Cheers