Macro Lens for K10D

I hope to get a Macro next and would like as usual a bit of advice from you, never had a macro before, only used my 135mm telephoto from a distance.
What would the visual difference be between a Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro and a Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro, as their min foc. dist. is the same and both are 1:1.

Also, has anyone seen any reviews on whether the Tamron or the Sigma Macro performs better, I think I did see a review in a PP few months back but can't remember only that the Pentax Macro didnt get a very good rating.

If a 105mm and 50mm macro lens had the same minimum focusing distance then they could not possibly be both 1:1 The 105mm must be just over twice as far away for the same magnification, and this is what is found.

We use the SMC Pentax-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro, which is superb. We have seen results from the SMC Pentax-F DA 100mm f2.8 Macro and , despite what any reviews may say, that was also superb.

Macro lenses are normally used stopped well down, so wide open performance may not be an issue. There's always the possibility that a soft wide open image could actually be very useful for portraiture.

In any event, I would suggest the longer macro lenses are more versatile.

The 105 has a minimum focussing distance of 31.3cm, the 50 of 18.9 cm.
Sigma also have a new macro - the 70mm with a minimum focussing distance of 25.7cm.

I have the Tamron 90mm, an old non-digital version, which I am very happy with.

I have heard that the 70mm Sigma is a very good lens, but I have not used it or the others.

Which you go for depends a lot on what you want to photograph. The longer lenses are better for insects etc as you are further away, and so less likely to disturb them.

I have the Tamron 90mm SP AF Di 1:2.8

I am extremely happy with it quality wise, and in the great outdoors with plenty of room it is brilliant, but with an effective FL of 135mm on my istD I find it a touch too long in more cramped circumstances. There are times when something in the order of 60mm (90mm equivalent) would be more convenient, but then nothing is perfect. The solution is to have both I wish
Graham

thank you gentlemen, I am wanting to experiment with abstract close up shots along the lines of the following link http://www.danielsroka.com/photos.php?portfolio=3

which I presume would suit the 50mm focal length better,

but, I would also like to be able to shoot insects too .... I presume I would still be able to get in and up as close (ie fill the frame the same) with the 105mm as the 50mm?

sorry if I sound a bit dim on this but trying to get my head around normal focal distances and macro focal distances!

yes if it has 1:1 macro - the difference is the camera to subject distance. For insects the greater distance afforded by the longer lens is IMHO better which is why I said my 90mm is great outdoors.

For even greater magnification there are other solutions such as close-up lenses (over-rated I think), extension tubes, converter lenses, bellows, even reversing rings but that is probably for the future.

Graham

PP doesn't seem to be a Pentax-friendly magazine. Optically, the D-FA 100 is superb and it shows that in tests, yet it gets marked down on some fickle aspects, that's why it doesn't get a good overall rating. I am very pleased with mine....

This gentleman is a lady

Gywn, most humble apologies... a bad assumption I know (your name threw me too) - that its all guys out there on the forum. Unfortunately, I get so used to being on my own in this field, especially when buying photo gear in shops and asst. addresses your old man etc etc... especially when he couldnt take a snap to save his life (he agrees too)

Anyway, nice to meet you and thank you for your comments, I won't be making assumptions that again!

Hi Lilly,

I have the Sigma 105mm and find it's great for what I want it for, which is mainly insects. I have had good results with the Pentax 50mm 1.7 with extension tubes, but you do end up very close to your subject which, depending on what it is, can be a problem.

This was with the 105 at f/5.6:



This was with flash at f/11 (I think, haven't checked the EXIF):



I like both the build and image quality. Can't say much more than that!

Dan

...also, just had a look at the Daniel Sroka images, and I can't see any reason why a 105mm or similar lens wouldn't give you these results, in fact the shallower depth of field and narrower angle of view may well be of benefit.

I normally try to get a bit more detail in my shots so I haven't got anything similar to show as an example. WIll be going in the garden in a while so I'll have a look and see what I come up with.

Dan

Corr...they are pretty darn good Daniel, presume was with K10D? How far away (appx.) were you?

Thank you Lilly, I like them!

Both were with my istD, haven't decided to go with the K10D yet, though no doubt will do at some point.

Dragonfly was in the garden of a cottage we stayed at down your way in Cornwall, couple of miles north of Marazion. Very nice.

The dragonfly wasn't at full magnification, so it was probably about 6 or 7 inches in front of my lens. Don't forget the minimum focusing distance of 12 inches is from the sensor to the subject, and the lens, with hood, measures about 8 inches when at 1:1 magnification. So when at minimum focus distance, as with the fly pic, the subject is still only 3 or 4 inches from the lens hood.

You still have to move slowly and steadily! Any sudden moves and the things fly off. But that's all part of the fun.

Been in the garden this afternoon, getting some flower shots at f/2.8. First couple are of a Snakes Head Fritillary, the third is Spurge. With a bigger flower such as the roses that Daniel Sroka uses a lot, you'd be able to fill the frame with your subject.









Dan

Thanks Dan for the examples of the 100mm, just the effect I was after and shows what is possible, does'nt it show off the amazing delicate colours when your eye is not drawn to detail, lovely.

I now understand that if I went the route of the 50mm I will have to be right up nose close to subject and there will be trade off not having an easy time shooting small wildlife too.

So, will think on, thanks for making it clear for me, much appreciated.

Thanks Lilly, for inspiring me to go out in the garden and get on my hands and knees!

Dan