recommend a macro lens please

Hi,
Up until now I've been using my compact for 'macro' shots and have been happy with it. Sample shot- http://www.photoblog.ie/2011/05/15/drops-of-sunshine-2/

But obviously a dedicated macro lens on a Dslr has to be better so I might as well buy one, try it out. If I don't like it I can sell it.
Points of note-
1. Currently I think I'd use it more for stationary things (e.g. toothbrush head, bubbles in a pint etc) rather than birds etc.

2. I don't pixel pick so I'm just looking for a dedicated macro lens (1:1 would be best I presume) for the cheapest price possible.

3. My gut feeling is to go for an auto focus lens. BUT I'd go for a manual lens if it's a lot cheaper and easy to use (as I'd be shooting static items I'd imagine it'd be easy).

I've noticed that a lot of dedicated macro lenses have a long focal point e.g. 90mm. In my head (I could be wrong) this means that if I have something on the kitchen counter or somewhere I have to stand above it a fair bit/stand back a fair bit.
Are most macro lenses a long focal length and if so why?

So can you recommend me a lens or two please? I'm also open to the idea of a Raynox macro thingy or anything else....

My current lenses are-
Sigma 30mm f1.3
Pentax 18-150mm lens
Pentax (or Tamron) 17-50mm f2.8

I bought an extension tube for €7 on Ebay but never got it to work properly- there's a pin or something missing so it gets stuck every time and I have to 'work it off'.

Thanks in advance,
Pa

Some compacts make macro photography a breeze, so I wouldn't discount them at all. Have a look at what CarolG on ePHOTOzine achieves. Would she be better with a DSLR - I doubt it.

However, with a DSLR it will have strengths of its own and the dedicated macro lens is definitely the way to go.

Pentax have 3 true macro lenses in their current lineup, at 35, 50, and 100mm. All are AF/MF, but I wouldn't be put off buying an older MF only lens. To any of those you could add extension tubes or a bellows to get greater than 1:1 magnification.

You'll get varying opinions about which lens to use for which subject. Here's mine. The 35mm is good for static subjects. The 50 is good for static and live, but sedate subjects. The 100mm is the one to go for for taking pictures of bugs in general.

There is a SMC Pentax-FA 200mm macro lens in the wild. If you can find one, it'll set you back somewhere between £1500 & £2000. The Sigma 180mm EX DG 1:3.5 macro lens is about the nearest you'll get to the FA 200mm. It's my favourite lens.

Birds are not usually considered to be a subject for macro-photography because to get 1:1 magnification, you need to be too close.

Shorter focal length makes it easier to hand hold, but to be honest you're going to need to use a tripod for most serious work. If you're afraid of spiders (or toothbrushes in your case) then maybe you need something slightly longer.

I have a Sigma 105mm/f2.8 AF macro lens. To be honest, I use it more for (brutally sharp) portraits than macro shots. When shooting macro I tend to switch it to manual.

By the way, the bubbles in my pint are definitely moving, although there are more of them than birds. That didn't quite come out right

EM

Prices have got silly, but the old Pentax 100mm f4 (sold as SMC Pentax and SMC Pentax-M, same lens, different lettering) still holds its end up pretty well judging by the test shots I've seen. I seriously considered buying one but realised that I don't do much macro photography.

One trick which might come in handy - if you want an extension tube with the A contacts and see a PK-A fit teleconverter you can usually unscrew the elements to convert it into an extension tube. I did this with an old Jessop 2x TC (no loss, cropped images from my 200mm f4 were better than images with the same lens plus the TC!) and it worked perfectly when I tried it with my Samyang 85mm, which otherwise has a minimum focus distance of about a metre.

I can honestly recommend the Sigma 70mm Macro f2.8 1:1 as it acts as a duel purpose lens, superb for Macro but doubles up as a fantastic portrait lens, sharp as a tack.

Thanks for the replies.
Just a few more questions:
What's the cheapest I'd get a 1:1, f2.8, any focal length, auto focus for?
And what lens with 1:1 would be the cheapest (any focal length, any aperture)?
Or less magnification but with extension tube or whatever else is needed?
Lastly are the Raynox thingys any good?
Thanks,
Patrick

The Tamron 90 mm f 2.8 is worth a look too - a very good performer.

Is there a big difference between 1:1 and 1:2?
I know it's 1/2 the magnification but what do most people use etc.

1:1 and greater here.

All of my macro lenses can produce 1:1 magnification. With tubs and/or bellows, greater magnifications are possible with trade-offs.

Last question: so what's the cheapest I'd get a 1:1 autofocus lens for?
Thanks.

On the MF front possibly a Tamron. The f2.8 version of the 90mm Adaptall-2 models (model 72B IIRC) is 1:1 without extension tubes, I would be looking to pay about £100-125 for one (without the mount). The other 90mm models are 1:2.

AF I'm not sure. There is an inexpensive AF Cosina macro that pops up on ebay every now and then, it might only be 1:2 though. Last one I saw sold for about £150ish.

The Cosina macro is excellent IQ in a plastic build for little money. It is 1:2 but comes with an matched adapter for 1:1. But get the manual focus version as it's better (apparently - I do not own both). Not sure why you'd want autofocus for macro, especially in the 1:1 range.