Reso - you mention that you are on a limited budget (how much?) and that you wish to maintain automatic metering. AE will rule out some of the cheaper options such as extension tubes (PKA tubes are hard to get and expensive when you find them) or some of the older MF lenses unless they have AE.

If you can't run to an AE macro lens, the cheapest option may well be to buy a close up filter to fit on the front of your lens or, as a step up, to buy something like a Raynox adapter to fit on the front of your 50-200. I've heard very good things about this particular combination, but have no personal experience of it. There are different Raynox adapters and I cannot remember off hand which one is the model to go for... but maybe others can add more, or you could try a Google search.

Alternatively, I see that you also have a 2X teleconverter. This also has the effect of increasing magnification whilst preserving the minimum focussing distance of your lens, so although you won't get true 1:1 macro, you may find that by pairing it with a prime lens that already focuses reasonably close in any case, you might get close enough for your needs.

You could do worse than try the TC with your existing lenses to see whether it gets you close enough, and what the impact on image quality is. As the 55-300 is a good quality lens, I'd be tempted to start with that one.

Hope this helps,

Jon

I'd strongly recommend the MX if you can find one in good shape. Pretty robust little camera, but check the shutter.

In common with any camera of that age you'll almost certainly need to replace the light seals if they haven't been done already, but it's relatively easy and can be done as a DIY job. Look on Ebay for "interslice" to get a good kit to do this.

Hmmm - unclear how an f2.5 lens can be "the same thing as" an f2.8 lens.

Tamron used to make a 90/2.5, for which Adaptall mounts were required, and which is still a very fine performer. It comes in two versions. Given it was only manufactured as an Adaptall mount lens, I would be surprised if it was marketed under another label.

When Tamron started making lenses in different mounts rather than Adaptall, the design was further refined, became f2.8, and has gone through a number of iterations to become the version that is still available. As per my previous post, I have never seen anyone comment on lack of sharpness from this lens - indeed precisely the opposite. It performs very well indeed.

By the way - I'm not trying to be a Tamron apologist: my macro kit is Pentax 50/4 and 100/4 - but I've used two copies of the Tamron in the past.

I'd be interested to know how the Elicar noted above is being used. Is it hand-held or tripod mounted? If handheld, then that makes good results very much harder to achieve - telephoto macro shots really do require proper support. If tripod mounted, then to be honest I think there is something wrong with it. Most macro lenses are known for producing at least decent and often exceptional results. If you can only get that from f11 onwards it needs to be serviced.

I use a Hoya rubber hood with mine, which is quite deep and seems to work well. Got it on Ebay brand new for less than a tenner.

Some nice shots in your link.

I'm surprised at your comments though. The Tamron is renowned as being a very sound performer and I doubt whether there'd be any normally observable difference in sharpness with the Pentax lens.

Bottom line I think is that all the recent and current macro lenses around the 90-100mm focal length are superb performers. I don't think you can go far wrong with any of them.

Pentax 16-45 confirmed as sold. Voigtlander 40mm/2 Ultron SLii (mint remember!) still for sale and resistance IS futile!

Bit of cheer in WH Smith today: August issue of Digital SLR User has a comparative test of "mid price" SLRs, including Canon 550D, Nikon D90, Olympus E30, Sony A500.

Doesn't go into exhaustive detail, but for once the reviewer actually seems to undertand the market that the K-7 is aimed at (and comments that it feels like it has been built for a very different market segment). It comes down to a choice between the Canon and the Pentax, and his overall winner was the K-7.

We're all given to spotting where reviews say things we don't like, so here's one that we might give a cautious nod to!

John - that was my first SLR too. The one you've just bought looks lovely. Mine was from my father after he bought a Nikon FE, and I kept it until I'd saved up enough pocket money plus wages from paper rounds to buy an MX from Techno in Manchester. I think it was pretty much the same price new that you had to pay for your Spotmatic!

I was actually sorely tempted by a Spotmatic ES spotted secondhand in London yesterday. Black, and looked in great shape. I was partly interested because it came with 50/1.4 lens but then I noticed the stuff growing everywhere inside it.... sad. If anybody else wants to take a look, it's £29 in LCE Strand branch (look hard - it's on a bottom shelf somewhere).

Lucky long zooms don't tend to be my thing then, as this wipes out a fair proportion of the affordable ones beyond the 55-300!

I have a couple of Tamron Adaptall's - the 180 SP (stunning) and 200/3.5 (cheap as chips and surprisingly decent), plus a Tokina 80-400 ATXii which does a fine job for the occasions that a longish zoom would be useful. As I've had no problems with any of the above, I think I'd best keep them.

But back on this thread, I think it might be interesting to compare the images using the Tokina on my K-7 and K100DS bodies - my assumption is that at normal viewing sizes, the 6MP camera will hold out remarkably well, not least because it is less likely to show up flaws in the lenses. And viewed at actual pixel level, I would expect the K100DS to look sharper. Some food for thought when I have some spare time....

John - thanks for the link - interesting article.