Macro flashes - any good?
Posted 30/08/2005 - 08:23
Link
A ring flash allows even illumination at very close distances, essential for some subjects. However, the downside can be that the lighting will be very frontal and relatively flat, so for three dimensional subjects a small additional flash could be added to produce some modelling and a nice highlight.
The clasic example would be Dental Macro photography, where a ring flash illuminates the teeth but they look dead. The extra flash adds a nice highlight where one is expected/needed and this lifts the picture and gives a more vibrant result.
The clasic example would be Dental Macro photography, where a ring flash illuminates the teeth but they look dead. The extra flash adds a nice highlight where one is expected/needed and this lifts the picture and gives a more vibrant result.
Best regards, John
Posted 30/08/2005 - 15:25
Link
I think John is right. A ring-flash is an excellent starting point, but another light source as well will lift the picture.
An interesting point for DSLR owners is that you can use the Pentax AF080C (which nominally fits lenses which take 49mm filters) with the FA 100 2.8 (which takes 58mm filters). Because of the crop-factor, it works fine using a 58-49 stop-down ring without vignetting. This wouldn't (I suspect) work with film bodies.
George
An interesting point for DSLR owners is that you can use the Pentax AF080C (which nominally fits lenses which take 49mm filters) with the FA 100 2.8 (which takes 58mm filters). Because of the crop-factor, it works fine using a 58-49 stop-down ring without vignetting. This wouldn't (I suspect) work with film bodies.
George
Posted 31/08/2005 - 00:16
Link
This is interesting. I was about to post a similar query: I've just got hold of an AF080C for my LX (thank you, Saint Ebay) to experiment with some macro work. My "normal" flash is the AF400T, but sometimes I mourn the loss of my AF280T because of it's (relative) compactness and was wondering if the 080 could be used as a "normal" flash when I can't be bothered rigging up the hefty 400.
From what has been said, it would appear that the 080 would give a flat, but not flattering, light. I haven't seen guide numbers, but I wouldn't expect the 080 to be as powerful as the 280 anyway. So I guess that's a no then
From what has been said, it would appear that the 080 would give a flat, but not flattering, light. I haven't seen guide numbers, but I wouldn't expect the 080 to be as powerful as the 280 anyway. So I guess that's a no then
Posted 13/09/2005 - 00:33
Link
This is a somewhat belated reply, but I would confirm that the O80C gives a very dreary light at normal distances, compared to the 280. Close-up, (its intended use), it's fine.
G
G
Posted 15/09/2005 - 01:07
Link
I've just checked and the guide numbers for the AF080C and AF400T are 8 and 40 respectively. So no comparison, really!
Although, could they be used in unison, with the 080 as a fill-in flash?
Although, could they be used in unison, with the 080 as a fill-in flash?
Posted 15/09/2005 - 07:54
Link
You would have to ensure the fill in does not overwhelm the ring flash. As these set ups are usually put together on one portable bracket arrangement, it is more usual to use a tiny pocket flash unit to add the modelling.
Best regards, John
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.


30 posts
22 years
I am interested to know what people think of the new macro flashes (the ones that go around the lens). The Sigma EM 140 DG is an example of what I mean.
Are they really any good for macro photography? Are they any better than a standard flash?
Thanks
J