Pixels or Glass?

I went to the 11s thou and agree with the above

I don't know if it's been said already because I haven't time right now to read the whole thread. but have you considered a K-5, K-5II, or K-5IIs instead of a K-3, and a macro/close focussing lens?

Also, there are other closer focussing options like the Raynox Macro Adapter and/or extension tubes.

Apologies if these have been mentioned before.

Be careful, not all lenses that say "macro" on them are macro lenses. A lot of old 28 or 35mm rimes say "macro" and they only have 1:5 magnification.

Regarding proper macro lenses, I suspect you're right. You're extremely unlikely to be taking macro shots at anything close to maximum aperture so even if you found one that's not great wide open, you wouldn't be using it like that anyway.

Ok, fair point for the uninitiated.

Add, no zooms and at least 1:1

No because characteristics of lenses is lot more than just resolution.


A k-3 would be a waste of money for your requirements. If you want to improve the camera's IQ especially with a lot more dynamic range then get a 2nd hand K-5 for around £300 and spend the rest of a lenses or lenses and tubes,etc

If you're happy with the IQ of your K-7 then keep it and spendit all on lenses, tubes

That contact isn't necessary as the body of the lens and camera pride the return path for the circuit, the problem with jessups tubes is that they've anodised the body without realising it's used as part of the circuit.

The problem occurs with old manual aperture lenses which have no contacts at all. You can't use stop down metering unless you scrape of the anodising. I have some old Cosina lenses in which I had to do this.

Hi Nigel

If the quality of the shots you have posted are typical of what you produce with your K7 and Tamron I wouldn't consider changing them.

First of I would spend £100-£125 on tubes with the contacts and an A50 f1.7 and a 49mm to K reversing ring.

If your still not a happy bunny and if you can still afford it get a DFA 100 f2.8 Macro, not the WR, the older one with the aperture ring for using catch in focus.

The next step is a K5/K5II/K5IIs.

Regarding the K3, I would put the new RGB Meter and AWB+ before pixels and AFS (but AFC is another matter).

------------------------------------
I would say the glass transmits the light. The better the glass the lower the modification. The film or the sensor produce the image. You can change either the film or the sensor and alter the amount of noise which ultimately affects IQ .

Yes, that is typical, and they are significant crops as well. Maybe I don't need to chase all those pixels after all! Its clear where the weight of argument has gone here, so I've got lots to do sorting through all the great suggestions. Looks like a dedicated macro lens in the 50 or 100mm range would be a way to go, as would extension tubes.

Am I right in thinking that you don't lose any light through the tubes (as there's not elements I think?) ... so shutter speeds would stay the same? And with the old manual lenses can you still have stop down metering with the green button?

Yes and yes, but make sure you get a set of tubes that have all of the pass-through electrical contacts.

On the macro lens front, my suggestion would be a minimum focal length of 90mm if your subjects include insects/bugs.

Tubes with contacts £100
Prime lens £50

Quality AF macro lens £200

For flowers you do not need 1:1, which is why JR recommended the 55-300.

For tiny flowers and insects you might need 1:1. Hence reversing and dedicated macro lenses.

For individual flower heads 1:2 might sometimes be needed but usually you use less magnification.

Close focusing is often more important than magnification. So the Vivitar 135mm CF is fine. Your 135mm might not get close enough.

Macro lenses give you the ability to get close in. A quality filter would help, the raynox or a decent +5 achromatic close up lens will not degrade the image by much.

The Nokton 58mm with a +5 close filter had lovely rendering and was about 1:3 mag.

Dodge69 was talking about rendering, there are pretty soulless bits of glass out there. Life exists in the older glass.

Reversing gets you an image great for insects and sub 1:1 but I don't like the clarity.

I captured a few birds foot trefoil recently with a Tamron 17-50, it focuses surprisingly close. I'd only have needed more magnification for a single flower.

You haven't got a nifty 50 which a lot of the reversing suggestions will rely on.

Worrying about the sensor is the wrong worry as has been pointed out the K-7 sensor will produce an excellent image. It suffers from noise in low light.

Spend out on a K-3 but you still will need glass.

Nigel,
If you can get your hands on one of these http://www.techtheman.com/2008/07/kenko-2x-macro-teleplus-adapter.html it saves having to change tube lengths. Mine cost £55 from another member on here and that seems the ballpark figure on eBay. Couple it with a 50mm M f1.7 or 50mm A f2 for £25 maximum. Here's a post I made in April.

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/back-garden-with-the-kax-macro-teleplus-4...

Here's one I took in my windy back garden earlier today with the KAX and the 50mm M f1.7




I've not cropped it - it's about 30mm diameter in real life. I've only sharpened it slightly.

Thanks, some great advice and summary there Dougf8. If I'm sticking with the K7 (looks like thats the case) I clearly don't want any quality loss - so sounds like reversing rings are out, but tubes seem an option

If I'd read it right from earlier, Zooms are the avoided with tubes? So would the Tamron 135mm I've got be OK with tubes (you've seen the results without above). Or do people think I'd be better to get another 135 with closer focussing built-in ... a Vivitar was mentioned. Any new examples I should consider? I really like the 135 focal length. The old Tamron has great resolution and clarity but bokeh is not very good - specular highlights in the OOF zones can be bright and you can sometimes see distracting aperture shapes. Is there a good new example of a 135 to consider?

I used to have a Sigma 100mm f2.8 DG EX macro (on my old Canon film system), and it was great - but rather heavy. Even for me (I love a big camera) I think it would be too heavy with the K7 & grip.

I'm going to research on tubes and lenses, and try some out when I can. Thanks to everyone for saving me £900!

I think we were saying that a lens that communicates aperture to the camera requires at least that connector to allow control with tubes. Manual tubes will not allow the aperture information to feedback to the camera. So a lens with "A" aperture control will require tubes with contacts.

There are of course auto tubes that will provide the mechanical stop down metering.

And yes you are right if there is paint on the tube, there is no short circuit required to let the camera know there is a manual lens present.

FYI, never mind the subject, look at the backgrounds too!!!
The Sigma 105mm is fine but a little clinical, I think I'm after a slightly more arty feel. Everybody has their own thing.

ALl JPG straight from K-5, hand held, mostly wide open
No cropping
The flower head is about 25mm in diameter.
Resized exported from Picasa then uploaded here.

hard to use, stop down, Vivitar 55mm and 135mm.
easier Kiron
easiest, Cosina

Like a lot of folks I seem to have where possible Aperture mode, centre weighted metering, with -0.7 dialled in.

Just start buying glass and see what you like

Vivitar 135CF (about 45cm from object) the barrel says 1:2 mag (£70 ish)



Vivitar 55mm (£70-100 ish getting rarer)



Kiron 105mm (£200 ish)



Cosina 100mm (£70ish)



Pentax 55-300mm at 200mm with £10 sigma achromatic close up filter (£200ish +10)



Pentax F35-70 (£50ish?)



Pentax DA50mm F1.8 on 36mm manual tube (no aperture selection possible and I think it closed right up so F32????) (£100)