macro

started takeing macro photos with a f 28-80 need advice on a proper macro lens please , only have a small budget ,dont mind manaul focus as long as i have A metering

I have just purchased a Tamron 2.8 90mm recently, you can see some of my attempts hear link The only complaint I have so far is that I tend to get some red fringing on images and suspect that the Pentax 100mm is sharper.

Some nice shots in your link.

I'm surprised at your comments though. The Tamron is renowned as being a very sound performer and I doubt whether there'd be any normally observable difference in sharpness with the Pentax lens.

Bottom line I think is that all the recent and current macro lenses around the 90-100mm focal length are superb performers. I don't think you can go far wrong with any of them.

Not sure of your budget but a nice one in the for sale section

I have both an Elicar 2.5/90 (same thing as your Tamron 2.8/90) and a Pentax K 4/100.

The Elicar has given me some trouble, as only the very small apertures (f11 to f22) give decently sharp images in good light (due to camera shake/subject movement, unless using a fast shutter speed -125th or better). I often get sharper results using a "normal lens" and extension tubes.

I feel the Pentax (very sharp) has given me better results more consistently.

I've never heard of Tamron making the Elicar 90mm f/2.5 before? most people seem to think it's the same as the Komine made Vivitar 90mm f/2.8. Different apertures quoted to confuse the buying public of the origin. Vivitar also had a 90mm f/2.5 made by Tokina considered by many to be the finest macro lens ever made especially with the Tokina badge on it.

It might be worth having the lens checked over? It should be sharp. Is infinity focus OK, because some Vivitar lenses have an adjustable front element for infinity focus which effects the resolution of the lens at all distances.

Algi

Hmmm - unclear how an f2.5 lens can be "the same thing as" an f2.8 lens.

Tamron used to make a 90/2.5, for which Adaptall mounts were required, and which is still a very fine performer. It comes in two versions. Given it was only manufactured as an Adaptall mount lens, I would be surprised if it was marketed under another label.

When Tamron started making lenses in different mounts rather than Adaptall, the design was further refined, became f2.8, and has gone through a number of iterations to become the version that is still available. As per my previous post, I have never seen anyone comment on lack of sharpness from this lens - indeed precisely the opposite. It performs very well indeed.

By the way - I'm not trying to be a Tamron apologist: my macro kit is Pentax 50/4 and 100/4 - but I've used two copies of the Tamron in the past.

I'd be interested to know how the Elicar noted above is being used. Is it hand-held or tripod mounted? If handheld, then that makes good results very much harder to achieve - telephoto macro shots really do require proper support. If tripod mounted, then to be honest I think there is something wrong with it. Most macro lenses are known for producing at least decent and often exceptional results. If you can only get that from f11 onwards it needs to be serviced.

On a limited budget, use extension rings or a reversing ring, preferably with a very sharp prime lens like the SMCP-A 1:1.7 50mm.

If you can't find that lens at a decent price, 50mms by Ricoh and Chinon are generally cheap and good.

G

Cosina made a 100mm f3.5 macro which is worth a look if you're on a very tight budget.

Reso - you mention that you are on a limited budget (how much?) and that you wish to maintain automatic metering. AE will rule out some of the cheaper options such as extension tubes (PKA tubes are hard to get and expensive when you find them) or some of the older MF lenses unless they have AE.

If you can't run to an AE macro lens, the cheapest option may well be to buy a close up filter to fit on the front of your lens or, as a step up, to buy something like a Raynox adapter to fit on the front of your 50-200. I've heard very good things about this particular combination, but have no personal experience of it. There are different Raynox adapters and I cannot remember off hand which one is the model to go for... but maybe others can add more, or you could try a Google search.

Alternatively, I see that you also have a 2X teleconverter. This also has the effect of increasing magnification whilst preserving the minimum focussing distance of your lens, so although you won't get true 1:1 macro, you may find that by pairing it with a prime lens that already focuses reasonably close in any case, you might get close enough for your needs.

You could do worse than try the TC with your existing lenses to see whether it gets you close enough, and what the impact on image quality is. As the 55-300 is a good quality lens, I'd be tempted to start with that one.

Hope this helps,

Jon

I have a friend who used to be a professional photographer and routinely used to use Tamron 90mm f2.5 Macro lenses. However, they wore out and in the time he only every bought one Pentax, Nikon or Olympus lens (he used all three) he went through four Tamrons. They are not as well built.

With the current prices of second hand lenses, I don't see much of a case for buying anything other than Pentax macro lenses.

O'Really? The Tamron (Adaptall 2 version) goes for 70-90 quid, the Pentax goes for 250-300... So for the cost of a single Pentax, you could throw away 4 Tamrons...

Edit: I don't consider AF useful for Macro. Yes the glass on the Pentax is better.

It depends on which versions we are talking about. An SMC Pentax-M 100mm f4 Macro for £100 or so off eBay would be a good buy. Macro lenses don't necessarily gain much from being AF.

It depends on what you can find though.

I agree with the advice about 100mm SMC-M (even better if you can buy one here!). However the OP asked for a solution that gives AE ability, which leads to more costly options....

Thats fine but then you need an Adaptall PK/A adapter (as the OP said he/she needs the A settings) for the Tamron which adds another £60


Again no A settings plus 1:2 ? macro .. which could be a pain if the OP wants to get serious about getting close. Would mean selling up and buying yet another lens

Certainly dont need AF though, never use it when doing macro as its not sensitive enough.