I like a slightly longer macro -- a 90 or 100 at least-- because camera and lens are less likely to get in the way of your light. I use a Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5, first version. It will do 1:2 on its own or 1:1 with its supplied optical adapter. I found mine for a bit more than $100, but they usually sell for a bit more than that. Paul
On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Brian Walters <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Quoting Collin Brendemuehl <[email protected]>: >> >>> While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55 >>> there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens. >>> Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement. >>> I'm thinking of bringing in my FA28-80 macro just to see how well it >>> performs. >>> Another option is the A50/2.8 macro. >>> But what are some other options that you think I should consider? >> >> >> Whenever this sort of question arises, someone always recommends the Tamron >> 90mm f2.5. So why break with tradition.....? >> >> I have a copy of the first manual focus version. It's been a valuable >> workhorse for me for well over 20 years. > > Also usually at about this point in a discussion such as this, I would > mention the DA 35/2.8 Macro Ltd, and how it's sharp enough to shave > with, but not this time. I think I'll just break with tradition. > > -- > -bmw > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
