I can't afford anything!

The original dragonfly pic was not as sharp as I would have liked. It was taken hand held with no flash. The spider and fly pic has suffered somewhat in the conversion to JPG and size reduction. The original is pin sharp.

The last shot is a perfect illustration of the need for flash. This was taken well after the sun had gone down and it was getting dark. There were a number of these flies on a particular shrub in my garden in UK last summer. Resting up for the night I guess.

I don't profess to be an expert macro-photographer but it is the most sastisfying aspect of photography for me. You'll get used to taking lots of rubbish shots, but occasionally you'll get a gem worthy of display.

Search the forum for posts by TomNitti. He's 14 and has produced some amazing images using stacked lenses. Near microscopic, let alone macroscopic. You can't fail to be impressed/inspired.

Regards,

F*@kin Ell! Pete, do me a favour, tell me exactly what lenses I have to get to do that. What does he have?

You're impressed then?

Re-read his posts, he lists the lenses he uses. His first post of the ants in close up used a Pentax 28-70mm and a 50mm mounted in reverse on the front. He doesn't say which model lenses. You could always send him a private message, or just add a post to one of his threads and ask the question. He uses a home made flash diffuser too.

BTW, when choosing language to use in your post to him, please remember he is 14, and his dad watches here too.

Regards,

You know, having spent the evening looking at semi-microscopic images, I feel there is a thin line that once it's crossed, I leave the realm of beautiful photography and enter one of almost scientific nature. It's more difficult to get a sense of environement such as background and natural lighting when you're zoomed in that close.

But I'm not knockin it. The images are fantastic and I'm still getting my lenses!

I totally agree, nicely put. I liked my dragonfly pic for many reasons. OK, it's slightly soft, either due to camera shake because it was hand held, or I got the focussing wrong, but . . . the pose is a classic and the background is subtle. It's all perfectly natural too, no retouching in Photoshop at all.

Good luck with your lens buying. Shameless advert now. I have a SMC Pentax 50mm 1:1.7 on ebay right now and it'd make an excellent lens to stack onto your 50-200mm. I've just bought a SMCP-FA 50mm 1:1.4 lens, I already have a SMCP-F 50mm 1:1.7 and an SMCP 50mm 1:1.2 so I don't need my SMCP-A 50mm lenses any more. I'm selling a 1:1.4 and a 1:1.7, the latter would probably suit your needs.

Happy macro'ing.

I've mentioned in the past that you can use a piece of electrical tape and two cokin filter rings to mount your 50mm lens to your 28-70, to get the same efect he's getting with a reverse mount adapter....might save somebody a couple bucks if they've got cokin rings laying about, and just want to try reverse mounting a 50mm.

If you can find one, I recommend a Vivitar 2 X Macro Focussing convertor.
I have used one sucessfully with 50mm and 70-210 zooms.
I saw one on Ebay last week, not sure what it sold for.

Steve

Update to my earlier post

Ebay auction listed to end 22:15 BST tonight
Pentax PK Fit 2x 1:1 MACRO Converter Opt Perfect

Current price less than £8

Steve

Can anyone advise, are close up filters and the combination of these filters any good?

Cool. Are you finetune99? Or cos50?

So why does everyone have to many lenses with such similar specs? What's the difference in shooting terms, between a 1.4, a 1.7, and a 1.2. I understand the 1.2 is faster than the 1.7, but how much use is that difference in real life?

Not as good a a reversed lens or dedicated macro but do quite well.

http://www.kleptography.com/index.htm
look at the equipment page and the macro shots.

http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G2G1macro.html
Just to see the effect of a macro filter set.

Hi Drewster,

you must remember though that macro photography can lead to bouts of insanity.. check out the following thread..

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3835

Cheers

Liam

Wow!

Neither, try mannesty
Eyesight failing, wearing glasses, can't trust manual focus anymore. The camera does a better job at focussing than me so I'm changing from my manual focus lenses to AF ones. The 1:1.2 is not available in AF as far as I know, so I'm keeping that one.

Each has different qualities. The 1:1.7 is pin sharp andmakes a great macro lens when mounted in reverse on the camera body (yes, an adapter is available to do that too), the 1:1.4 is pin sharp when stopped down a little but has greater scope in poor lighting, the 1:1.2 . . . well, it's a 1:1.2, ideal if used wide open for indoor shots without flash. Having the 1:1.4 and 1:1.7 means that the 1:1.2 mostly gets used wide open for that extra stop. Otherwise there's not a lot of point having one.