All Forum Comments
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 19/05/2007 - 20:24
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 19/05/2007 - 19:40
I should point out that good macro lenses tend to have two other qualities:
1 They are exceptionally sharp
2 The have a very flat plane of focus - with most lenses the "plane" is actually concave. This makes them suitable for document copying, for instance.
G
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 19/05/2007 - 19:15
Was browsing through the K-mount listings and came across this:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/K50f1.2-Gold.html
What a waste of money...
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 19/05/2007 - 17:24
My lens is manual focus, and 20 years old. So it's not worth as much as
a new one.
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 19/05/2007 - 17:22
It's all right, Drewster. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
BTW, I don't think your account will be banned. Ridiculed, you might be. Belittled, occasionally. But banned . . . probably not, as long as you display some first class results here
Perhaps I can interest you in a nice Pentax macro lens that I am selling?
SMC Pentax-A 1:2.8 50mm, lovely condition, sharp as a razor, and it's certainly not "anything", so you CAN afford it
What does the numbers mean before the mm? i.e. 1:2.8. Are these the max apperture values?
I have an 18-55mm. Now I thought the mm signified whether it was a wide angle/normal/telephoto. Like a 17mm, must be a super macro Macro, right? But I've seen Macros such as the Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro. This is a 70mm lens, but capable of getting in closer then my 18-55mm. So the question I'm really asking is what differenciates a Macro from say a normal 18-55mm lens.
And one last Q, why do the new ones cost £200 +, when I can pick up an old one for cheaper (a lot cheaper, aye George!).
Many thanks!
Drew
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 19/05/2007 - 11:28
Well, here's a confession, I don't have a Pentax.
I have a Samsung GX10. The 2 lenses I have are a Schneider D-XENON 18-55mm + 50-200mm.
Before my forum account is banned, they are the same camera built in the same factory. Ten feet away from the door the conveyor belt splits into two.
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 18/05/2007 - 23:16
Guess what I'll be doing this weekend!
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 18/05/2007 - 22:43
This is a picture of a Bee, taken with the 18-55mm kit lens on a Pentax DS.
This is not known as a 'quality' lens.
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 18/05/2007 - 22:34
No, much better. That one was taken with a Canon.
Then come back and show us some macro pics.
Comment by the_drewster posted on I can't afford anything! at 18/05/2007 - 22:31
A tip. To get the maximum depth of field (the near and far points of the subject that are in focus) you need to use small'ish apertures. To be able to use small apertures you generally need lots of light.
You'll undoubtedly need a flash but it'll have to be mounted such that it lights the subject from above and/or to the side(s). Having a flash fixed to the camera will almost certainly result in images where the subject is in the shadow of the lens. A diffuser or alternative mounting is preferred, or use a ring flash which mounts to the end of the lens.