Wide Macro Lenses

Does anyone have experience of Wide-Angle Macro lenses such as the Sigma 24mm f1.8 Macro?

I want some sort of Macro lens to use for work (Product photography with close ups) but as its my own lens, I don't want to really get a standard telephoto Macro as I don't really do any photography that would use it, as I don't do any wildlife photography.

There is of course the DA35 Macro Limited and FA 50mm Macro but they are both so close to the FA43 I already have I am not sure I would use both.

The Sigma 24mm Macro would give me ~35mm FOV which would be useful as a general wide lens compared to the FA43's ~65mm FOV.

Also, 'if' Pentax ever make a FF camera, and 'if' I ever moved up to it I would already have two FF lenses.

Are there any other similar Wide lenses with Macro capability?

The Sigma 24mm F/2.8 Superwide is very good if you can find one on the seconhand market. The Sigma can focus down to just 18cm (1:4 mag) and is full frame compatible.

John

Maybe it's just Sigma's naming - but since when has 24mm been super wide on APSC? Or even on full frame?

Actually I wondered why anyone would want to use a wide angle macro when standard/tele macros seem so much more useful. Then I looked around a bit and found some examples and it is indeed a very different portrayal you get.

From the examples I saw I was left feeling you realy want either a standard/tele macro for decent working distance or alternatively a really wide one to get background context as well. I have an old Pentax 17mm/2.8 kicking around that I could put some extension tubes on and see what it does but don't have any really wide stuff myself.

Anything wider than 28mm on full frame, which the lens was originally designed for, was Ultawide by definition but superwide is an odd name I must admit.

John

Not be any definition I know. Ultrawide==*wider* than 24mm seems the most accepted usage. Even Wiki has that.

Things must have changed then, 35yrs ago 24mm was Ultrawide. There's a lot of duff info on Wiki BTW

John

Nah. Even back then Ultrawide was the 8/15/17mm lenses. I'll accept 20 as well if you like.

It depends how far back you go. In the early 1960s 35mm-50mm-135mm was the normal set for amateurs. If you could afford three lenses like that, you were lucky. I never could for sure.

The wides stretched to 28mm eventually, and that was considered "difficult" for amateurs at first. 24mm at that stage was definitely ultra-wide.

However, soon 28mm seemed a bit passé and 24mm was the objective of choice. Then 20mm was the holy grail of ultra-wides.....do you see a pattern emerging? 18mm lenses were discussed by writers in magazines in suitably hushed tones.

At the telephoto end, 135mm gave way to 100mm lenses. And then came zooms.

+1

John

Is it just the Sigma 24mm and 28mm Macro models then?

I have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 macro. I didn't buy it primarily for macro but it works well as a fast wide lens, if you do not mind the size and weight. The couple of times that I have used it for macro I have been happy with it, but I am no macro specialist.

Here is one I took with it a few weeks ago of some baby beetles?? hatching on an orchid

If you want shots of small products, such as camera lenses for example, then the 18-55mm kit lens is all you need. It focuses impressively close and when stopped down to f/16 gives very nice quality.

Probably not the desired answer!

Thanks chaps, on further research I think I may just go the sensible route and plum for a D-FA 100mm Macro. It seems a sensible choice and keeps the 49mm filters along with the FA43 and DA15 (I plan to buy at some point) and has great build.

I think this may be the best route. (And wasting your time )

EDIT: Just seen that the DA15 does close focus at around 18cm which is about the same as the Sigma 24mm. It looks spot on for both!

The Sigma Superwide II 24mm is still worth keeping on your radar though, it's a lovely little lens, very sharp.