macro lens for ist DS

I had the Sigma 105mm EX and it was a great lens but I rarely used it so I traded it. As I recall, the DG version of this lens differed from the older EX version only in that it had an extra coating on the rear element. I used mine on an MZ-3 though so you might be better off with the DG. Nowadays if I need a macro, I use a reversing adaptor with a K 55/1.8 and a Nikkor AI 28/2.8.

I know that pub well

what would be a good price for a SMC Pentax-M 100mm F:4 macro lens?

Hi,

I've been off work today with the flu, so thought I'd practice a bit more with some macro work. I have a little gallery here..

http://www.liamsworld.org.uk/galleries/macro2/ (only 14 images)




30s @ f22 ISO 200

(I was going to post up the one of a match, until my golfing scribbler kindly voluteered to model, seeing as how pencils seem to be the macro image of choice this week)

I used a Promura 28-80 macro zoom with a 2x converter and 2 x 28mm tubes.

I didn't use the full macro potential of the lens.. because I couldn't get any light between the lens and the object, it really can get that close. I'll have to find something transluscent to shoot, just so I can get backlight..

If you have a look at the first image in the gallery, that's some of the portcullis on the back of a 1p piece, to give an idea of scale.

I had to pull out quite a way for anything less flat. I used a hand held flash for some and ambient light for others. Having (as mentioned somewhere else here) a radio transmitter for the flash means that I can just hold it in one hand with the cable release in the other, pointing it in the right direction.

Cheers

Liam

I tried backlit..

:
Which one should I get, the FA 100 f2.8 Macro or the FA 50 f2.8 Macro? Am I how wrong assuming the 50 being optically superior to the 100?

Both should be optically superb. The decsision rests on what working distance you feel you will need for the type of pictures you take. The 100mm will give the same field of view as the 50mm but from double the distance - will this hinder or help?

For example, for photographing documents I find the 100mm needs to be a liittle too far away for convenience, and the 50mm gives a better working distance.

For butterflies and insects it might be an advantage to be further away.

It may also depend on what other lenses you already have. The 100mm makes a fantastic portrait and landscape lens, but if you already have a lens of this length then perhaps that would be a consideration.

For digital I'd probably go with the 50mm, and with film my preference would be the 100mm lens.

After seeing Liam's photos I decided to try my Vivitar 55mm macro plus the extension tubes to see what sort of magnification I could get:










All taken handheld @ ISO 200 with a single studio flash head for lighting.

With the macro lens at 1:1 plus the tubes the subject was just about touching the filter ring of the lens. That made lighting difficult so the lens was angled to let some light in, which means not all of the subject is sharply in focus.

Thank you John and Niblue -

yes, this simplified the matter a lot.
I am not good at phographing moving objects, , even if my equipment was. I like models with roots.
My first and so far the only lens is DA 40mm f2.8 Limited because I needed a multi-purpose lens. No matter how much I loved - and still do - my tiny Optio S40 it is not the best for landscape etc. But I have taken some awesome shots with it and the most important thing is it taught me to love photography.

I owe Pentax an apology. Last night I had a drink in the Bell and Crown, the name of which in gold lettering I pictured earlier in this thread to illustrate an example of chromatic aberration.

Well, last night I noticed that the gold lettering on the sign was edged with dark red. This was what I thought was CA on my trusty old M 400mm.

So, it was nothing of the kind. The lens is absolved of all guilt, and I humbly apologise for suggesting it was anything other than optically damn near perfect.

G