Macro Advice from the experts please!

Yes, don't forget second hand. I use a SMC Pentax-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro that cost around £200 and is fantastic.

Sue uses the SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm f2.8 Macro, also bought secomnd hand and from the same forum member, for around £250.

We were going to sell one of them, but we like them both so much we can't part with either!

LOL! Exactly the same here!
Once you've got one you don't want to part with it
Matt

Thank you guys that helps me enornously, I shall have to join the queue of looking for a secondhand 100mm macro and be patient!
Lilly

Don't turn down one of the older M-series macros, which were excellent and may be easier to find - not to mention cheaper. Manual focus and exposure is not a big problem when doing macro.

G

Yes that true - thanks!

I have read with interest the comments about the Pentax 50 & 100mm macros. I am hoping to buy a macro early next year. Certainly the comments here are very favourable for the Pentax macros. However Sigma do an equivalent. Does anyone know if the Pentax performs better to merit the difference in cost?

My subject matter would be flowers and creepy crawlies.:

All macro lenses should give excellent results, but the Pentax ones might be better quality at very large print sizes.

More important is that I think they are more compact and better made, so the long extension helicoid needed for such close focusing may well last longer before becoming sloppy.

A second hand Pentax macro in almost new condition should be quite possible to find.

Thanks John
I print at A3 for club competition work and general display. I presume this is large in your terms? Certainly I am seeking the best detail I can get. I guess Pentax is the solution then.
I now need to decide whether to get the 50mm and better depth of field or 100mm so as not to scare the butterflies away! No my budget does not allow me to buy both! let alone carry it with the rest of my gear.

regards

Len

Yes, A3 prints is what I had in mind.

I'm glad you mentioned DOF because at these close distances it becomes relevant that DOF actually depends on magnification (distance is the normal way we view it) so if an object ends up the same size in your viewfinder the DOF for the 50mm and 100mm lenses will be the same. This is because the 100mm is twice as far away to maintain the same degree of magnification.

What will change is the viewpoint and this will change the relationship between different objects in the view.

Generally, 100mm macros are more useful.

Thanks John,

I would prefer the 100 mm to get far away from nervous subjects. I am suprised by the information provided though do not doubt it! I presumed that DOF was limited by the aberations due to periferal rays such as remaining spherical aberation and possibly coma so this was improved with a smaller apperture as the centre of the lens is only used. However I would like to think it through.

Regards

Len

Don't get confused - aperture will indeed affect DOF. Small apertures may well be especially needed for close up subjects.

Very small apertures will start to reduce quality through diffraction, but don't let that put anyone off using them when necessary.

Think around magnification. If a subject is recorded at say a 1:1 magnification then the DOF is controlled by the aperture, but it doesn't matter what lens you use - 50mm or 100mm macro will give you the same DOF.

Note, I have 'bolded' a few words in John's post. As John says, all macros should give excellent results, I use a Sigma 105mm and I know it does. I would be more than happy to enlarge shots from it way beyond A3 size. At higher magnifications, good quality is as much to do with good technique as anything else.

The Sigma macro lenses are in their EX range, which are generally superbly made, with a solid feel and smooth action.

My advice is to buy what you need at a price you can afford. If that's a Pentax, that's fine, but don't feel you can't get good results with another brand. I can't say that the Sigma or Pentax lenses would produce better results, as I haven't done side by side trials either.

Dan

My main reasons for sticking with pentax are these:

Pentax are usually very good to outstanding, in image quality.

Pentax are usually cheaper than thier canikon equivalents. (but often more expensive than third party makers).

Having several bodies and lenses, I like to know that the smc coatings will yeild similar color, contrast, image qualities if I shoot the same scene with different lenses (like weddings) I can mix and match the results, easier. It would suck if say I needed a montage of the ring exchange, the kiss, and the couple at the alter, and had three images (100mm macro, 50mm, 16-45) with different color looks to each shot...

I would just say that quoting me and adding bold to some words does actually change the meaning of the quote, so the original is the accurate representation of what I was saying. Why not bold the "should" as well?

That's a fair point John, I should have bolded the 'should' in your quote too. I apologise for that.

I wasn't trying to change the meaning, just that your statement was your opinion, and based on conjecture (based on your personal and considerable experience), rather than gospel. Len's following comment...
...would imply that he took your comment as gospel, and I was just trying to point out the conjecture element.

We can say with some certainty that Pentax lenses will have consistent colour and contrast qualities as Don points out, and they have a history of producing (mostly) superb lenses, but when considering the ability of lenses to print up to A3 and beyond, Pentax is not the only solution.

Obviously, that's just my opinion, and anybody and everyone is perfectly at liberty to disagree with me!

Dan