macro lens

i was wondering if any one here uses a bellows set up for macro work, if so what lens do you use with it.

and secondly what sort of money do pentax 100mm f4 go for on ebay, if they go for more than a £100 is it a good idea to save and get a new tamron or sigma maco?

Thanks in advance Pete

I used to use a M auto bellows, combined with a 70 mm 2,8 lens. The problem for me was that the lowest magnification with the bellows was still to large and without the bewllows, the magnification was way too low. The problem is that the bellows themselves take up some space between lens and sensor. And those millimeters are just to much if you want to work in a more or less common macro range.
Besides, working with bellows requires more 'fiddling' than a dedicated macro lens.

My suggestion would be to use a bellows for reproduction larger than 1:1 and to use a macro lens for everything else. After looking around a bit, I decided on the Tamron 90 mm 2,8 macro. Is is a great, sharp lens. I really recommend it.

Roger.

Well I was following a few auctions lately on the Pentax 100mm F4.

The last two went for this:

A - model : $370

M- model: $130

Note: Those lenses were in US - not Europe - so add tax and so to the price. I rarely see them in Europe (or did - since I bought the Sigma 105mm Macro a few days ago - and don't look for them atm.)

The last FA 2.8 I saw went for 450 € - and the A F2.8 went for 250€

Hope that helps you a bit!

I tried using bellows with an old M42 55mm lens. It was fiddly and I hated the stop down metering needed. The working distances were also very small so not practical for moving subjects. I stumped up for a Tamron 90mm dedicated macro lens and it's like a different world using it compared to the bellows.

Why Sigma or Tamron, the Pentax SMC 100mm f2.8 D FA Macro is a cracking lens.

thanks for the reply's
i think i will try and get hold of a bellows and a manual prime to cure my macro urge for now, and then invest in a dedicated macro lens a little later.
any advice on a good lens fo use on a bellows is apreciated.
In reply to mille19 i will be trying to get a macro lens as cheap as possible,so tamron or sigma seem to be the cheapest at the moment.
i will keep looking at ebay for a cheap m or a pentax 100mm macro, but any i have seen do seem to fetch a good price.
cheers pete

SMC Pentax (M,A,F,FA) 50mm 1:1.7 makes an excellent companion to the bellows for macro photography. I believe the 1:1.4 variant has a flatter field of focus, useful for copying. The latter however is much more expensive and a used SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1:1.7 can be bought very cheaply. The electrical contacts in the 'A' and later lenses are redundant on a bellows but you might like to use the lens as a normal prime so a Pentax-A or newer is preferable.

It's the other way around. The 1.7 is flatter, and therefore better for macro.

G

If you intend to use the bellows on more than just the odd occasion, the dedicated 100mm Bellows lens is very good and generaly goes for less than £100. Only problem is that it cannot be used directly on the camera. Otherwise, I would go with the recommendation for the 1.7/1.8 50mm lens.

Kim

Is there a lot of difference between the bellows lens and a normall lens, greater dof maybe?
Thanks pete

Thanks George.

Two main differences I think. The dedicated bellows lens is 100mm 1:4 and has a flat field of focus and no means of adjusting focus which is achieved by adjusting the bellows.

Is the bellows lens better? I don't know, but it is less versatile as it can only be used attached to a bellows, a 'standard' lens is faster and can be used on the camera as well.

It is specifically designed for Macro work. At greater than life size, any normal lens needs to be reversed. Even at 1/3 or 1/2 life size a "normal" lens is not ideal due to the relative angles entering and leaving the lens. The bellows lens is "ideal" in this respect. As has been said, there is no focus adjustment on it as the bellows is designed for this.

As far as DOF is concerned, this is relative to focal length, aperture and distance rather than lens design so there would be little difference.

Kim