Macro different mm

When I first wanted to get a Macro lens, I looked into all the different possibilities available, and realised that, because the difference between a 50mm regular and a 50mm Macro is so little (IMHO), and the FA50 can already focus a very close distances, I should have bought a longer lens. (BTW Lens, not lense )

I then looked into all the different brands, around the 100mm focal lenght, and decided that I couldn't spend too much money on a lens that I would only occasionally use. I am not a macro photographer, but there is always the need for some macro pulling power when the occasional spider gets inside the window....

I bought an old Pentax M100mm Macro f4. I spent about £40 on ebay, and it works a treat. It is incredibly sharp, very useful also for portraits, obviusly manual focus, but this is not a bad thing in a macro lens. I bought the old version because I couldn't justify spending hundreds on a lens that I would only occasionally use. It really is an amazing lens, and perhaps something you should look into.

ANd with the money saved, you can always look at a good DA* zoom, or another prime.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

I'll second that recommendation for the M 100mm f4 macro. I had to pay a bit more for mine on ebay (£70) but well worth the money.
I started a thread in the " Your Photos" section called "M100 f4 macro. Hints and tips please" if you want to see some examples of what it can do in my unskilled hands.
It really is a great little lens and will leave you enough money to buy a good flash to light those macro shots when winter sets in!

P.S.
the M100 f4 is 1:2 not a 1:1 macro. I'd recommend a 100mm macro to give you extra distance from the object , so you don't frighten it away or block the light. I'd love the 35mm macro ( but the 50% price rise has put that on hold) but in macro mode with short focal length lenses you can get so close that you can put the entire object in shadow unless you're very careful.

Time for a little demonstration!

I just popped out to my garden to take these, they're not great photos but I hope they illustrate the point I was trying to make. All were taken at ISO200, daylight WB and f/5.6 - all are uncropped (just re-sized for web use).

The first shows a fairly typical scene that could be taken with pretty much any lens with a 35mm focal length:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/35dist.jpg[/IMG]

The second was taken at a distance of 30cm - this is typically the closest distance a "normal" 35mm lens will allow you to focus to:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/35norm.jpg[/IMG]

The DA35 Macro lets you get a lot closer though. This was taken at the minimum distance of 13.9cm:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/35macr.jpg[/IMG]

As you can see, the macro facility allows you to get very close to your subject so that you can shoot pictures that you simply can't with a traditional lens of 35mm length. This is what I meant when I was talking about getting interesting perspectives on your everyday photography - small details can become wonderful photos in their own right.

Here's another quick comparison, again at ISO200-Sunny-f/5.6 but with the 35 and 100 macro lenses compared. There has been no cropping to these either, just re-sizing for the web.

First here's two shots that show a scene as you could capture it on a traditional (non-macro) lens. The first is from the DA35 at around 30cm (typical closest focussing distance for a normal 35mm lens), the second is from the D-FA100 at around 100cm (typical closest focussing distance for a normal 100mm lens):

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/norm35.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/norm100.jpg[/IMG]

Although the dimensions of the main subject (the pink cyclamens) are roughly similar, the 35mm lens reveals more of the background and has a greater depth-of-field despite both lenses being set to the same f/5.6. Of course the 100mm lens allowed me to stand further away from the subject to get the picture.

The following two shots were both taken at the minimum focus distance for each lens (DA35 first, D-FA100 second):

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/macr35.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/macr100.jpg[/IMG]

Once again the subject is approximately the same size on the final image (as it should be as both lenses are rated at having a reproduction ratio of 1:1), the difference is that with the DA35 the distance from the sensor to the subject is 13.9cm (front lens element almost touching the flower!) whereas with the D-FA100 the distance from sensor to subject is 30.3cm (giving a healthy gap between the front of the lens and the flower).

As a superb quality, general purpose, walk around lens (that also happens to take macro picures) then the DA35 is perfect.

As an insect-chasing lens that also happens to double-up as a useful portrait lens then the D-FA100 is a better choice.

I'm sure you'd be very pleased with either of these lenses (hence there being "no right or wrong" answer) but if I could choose just one of them then I think the DA35 would win simply because of its versatility and stunning image / build qualities.

Thanks for the effort, Hefty



I try to digest all this now


Sry, LENS; LENS; LENS; LENS; LENS; LENS
I have been told it before

I know of a lens George - it's beautiful and sublime - I present the FA* 85 mm f1.4

Good job I have both

And I have the 100 mm D-FA. Underused I admit....time to visit Kew Gardens. For the benefit of the OP, the Sigma and Tamron are very good lenses, contemplating the 180 mm Sigma still

Aiki, also note from Hefty's examples how much easier it is to 'select' a background for the shot with the 100mm lens. The 35mm shows more of the background, as it has the wider field of view, and it can be harder isolate your subject against a clean background. With a longer focal length a small movement side to side or up and down can dramatically change the background.

If Hefty had moved his camera down a bit so that he was looking up slightly towards the flower, the 100mm shot would have had a green background, giving the photo a different look altogether. This is harder to do with a 35mm macro.

Hope that makes sense.

Dan

You can easily get "the Macro experience" with the lenses you already have: buy yourself a set of auto extension tubes. With these tubes, every lens in you outfit can be used in close-up mode, so you can check out the various options to your heart's content...cheaply!