From:
Walter Hamler
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest
Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH
has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They
also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A .
Anyone know anything about
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
I lucked into a Pentax-A 100 f/2.8 macro a year or so back, and it's a
fine lens. The f/4 lens only goes to .5x, while the f/2.8 goes to 1x.
And according to Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Equipment Page, the f/2.8A
that it doesn't make much
sense to compare the images you suggest, though. It's just a different issue.
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/03/15 Thu AM 02:39:12 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway
in the magnification expression or calculation !
! !
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Mishka,
Magnification in macro work
issue.
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/03/15 Thu AM 02:39:12 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway.
how do you measure it?
suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels
Nice compression.
Markus Maurer wrote:
I got so confused about all this small /big macro/tele chat that I foolishly
left the Pentax A50mm macro in the bag and used the Tamron SP 500 mirror
lens for a flower shot this morning :-)
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/solicom/eastermirror.jpg
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Mishka,
Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the
subject to the size of the format. 1
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
The format is irrelevant to magnification. I was giving an example. If
you understood what I said, you'd understand that it was the same
thing ... said another way:
- The size of the DSLR format is 16x24. If the magnification is 1:1,
the size
incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm
regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall.
size of the format does not enter the equation.
best,
mishka
On 3/15/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm
regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall.
size of the format does not enter the equation.
Actually, what Godfrey is saying
] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:57 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm
regardless whether
I give up. People don't know how to read.
G
On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:57 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm
regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
I give up. People don't know how to read.
Soylent Green is people..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:45:14
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
I just finged one at yer head. Did it hurt?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:37:50 -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
The format is irrelevant to magnification. I was giving an example.
If you understood what I said, you'd understand that it was the same
thing ... said another way:
- The size of the DSLR format is 16x24. If the magnification is
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
I just finged one at yer head. Did it hurt?
William Robb
Only my feelings. :-)
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
I just finged one at yer head. Did it hurt?
William Robb
Only my feelings. :-)
get past it, ya big baby
ww
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
So far as I know only one member of this list has never misread anything!!
I'm not sure that the word stone adequately represents the very
glutinous nature of the object being throwm
Peter
--
Peter Fairweather wrote:
uhh... who here has *NEVER* misread something?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
So far as I know only one member of this list has never misread
anything!!
I can think of at least one who appears never to have *read* anything
on the list ;-)
--
Giving an interesting twist to the lyric, People who love people ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: William Robb
Soylent Green is people..
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Statement: I don't like your mother in law.
Answer: Then just eat the vegetables.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Giving an interesting twist to the lyric, People who love people ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: William Robb
Soylent Green is people..
--
%+ an actual scene or object
with same framing/AOV is needed, NOT same image
magnification needed.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Whittingham
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:42 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Traditionally Macro started at 1:2. lots of lenses that were only
close focusing 1:4 were labeled as macro however
magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway.
how do you measure it?
suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels
and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag
images made on them?
best,
mishka
On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you
Mishka,
Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the
subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a
16x24mm area.
G
On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote:
magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway.
how do you measure it?
suppose you
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Mishka,
Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the
subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28
mm F series.
exactly, I too like my F50/1.7 and IMHO only Limiteds and everything
pre-A are nicer looking. Actually it was the first AF lens I've bought
to see what about AF is. I still prefer to focus it manually
I forgot to add that the FA 100/3.5 Macro is a 1:2 lens.
If I'm not mistaken older version of the Tamron 90 Macro were 1:2 as
well (1:1 with matched adapter).
2007/3/13, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have few experience with macro lenses 'cos I only own two:
* Tamron SP 70-210 3.5-4 Macro
I have the M100/4 macro. Cheap and tack sharp. Bokeh could be better.
Toine
On 3/13/07, Walter Hamler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF,
for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4
in different
against green since my military service
:-(
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of
Brian Walters
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:34 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
Beauty is in the eye
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format,
(33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good
to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography,
but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format,
(33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good
to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography,
but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you
dont want only the long end of the
John Whittingham wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format,
(33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good
to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography,
but just like normal photography, if you
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Brian Walters
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:34 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28
mm F series.
Cheers
Brian
control
background somewhat with DOF/aperture if needed.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:16 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
John Whittingham wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar
, 2007 8:14 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format,
(33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good
to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just
like normal photography
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I would rather have only a 50mm
for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by
general purpose MACRO.
And I would rather have only a 100mm macro for APS-sized digital for my
general purpose macro.
So really it is personal preference based on what subject you
generally
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
they dont allow better control of the background
when you WANT some more background do they? Thats
what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases.
Of course, I agree with that. I use wide angles a lot for flower macros.
It is not always desired to have the extreme
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
FF wrote:
they dont allow better control of the background
when you WANT some more background do they? Thats
what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases.
Of course, I agree with that. I use wide angles a lot
Walter Hamler wrote:
Thanks for all the various inputs on the Macro question. You all gave
me a
lot to think about.
I just talked to the folks at BH, and they would have had to order the
AF
version of the Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 macro (same lens as the Pentax 100
f/3.5
that is discontinued),
Walter Hamler wrote:
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF,
for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4
in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm
f/2.8 A .
Anyone know anything about these or
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I would rather have only a 50mm
for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by
general purpose MACRO.
And I would rather have only a 100mm
with extensions.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:37 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
they dont allow better control of the background
when
List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Walter Hamler wrote:
Thanks for all the various inputs on the Macro question. You all gave
me a
lot to think about.
I just talked to the folks at BH, and they would have had to order the
AF
version of the Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 macro (same lens as the Pentax 100
f/3.5
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general,
its very limited to only smaller objects at
higher. I am talking about doing everything you
can do with a macro lens thats better than
using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all.
jco
I CAN do more than just smaller
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the topis was a ONE
LENS macro setup, and for only one
lens those long lenses are too long
for general purpose macro IMHO.
And that's your opinion which does not match MY opinion for MY one lens
macro kit.
What make 300mm and 500mm true macro
lenses are you
for non macro usage 50mm
lenses are considered normal / general
purpose and 90-105mm lenses are NOT.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:46 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
that is why I recommended a good general
purpose MACRO focal length on APS , like the 50mm SMC-A MACRO lens.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:41 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more normal AOV ) from
a different, closer point of view than the really
long macro's extremely narrow AOV from more
distant POVs.
Sounds like a specialist kind of purpose (kinda like what you called my
specialist purpose of LIMITING AOV or
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:40:40 -0400, Christian wrote
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the topis was a ONE
LENS macro setup, and for only one
lens those long lenses are too long
for general purpose macro IMHO.
And that's your opinion which does not match MY opinion for MY one
lens macro
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:44 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses.
Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not
going
to give you the same overall image quality
as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make
matters worse.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses.
I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses,
however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the
*ist D.
Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is
If your just looking for use at GFM, i, like John stated, like the
70-210, which i will bring, along with the 100 F2.8 and my Tamron,
Nikon mount, 90 macro. You can borrow one if you like.
I'll probably use the Tamron.
Dave
On 3/14/07, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes the Sigma
I love the Tamron 90 SP Macro.
Marnie aka Doe
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more normal AOV ) from
a different, closer point of view than the really
long macro's extremely narrow AOV
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Whittingham
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:44 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses.
Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses
actually have wished
for a 35mm macro instead recently which I don't have.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I
Ditto. Simply superb lens. If it was an f2 it would be perfect (I could
replace my 85 with it then) but without that it still is one of the best
lenses I've owned.
-Adam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I love the Tamron 90 SP Macro.
Marnie aka Doe
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:48:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not
going to perform as well as non-telephoto
dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason
why 50mm may be a better choice on APS format
because the 50mm macro lenses are not telephotos...
jco
What
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:58:01 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l.
ON APS gives much better working distances
than it did on on 35mm FF format for same
subject framing. This is because you dont
have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill
] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:10 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
Ditto. Simply superb lens. If it was an f2 it would be perfect (I could
replace my 85 with it then) but without that it still is one of the best
lenses I've owned.
-Adam
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:48:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not
going to perform as well as non-telephoto
dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason
why 50mm may
Traditionally Macro started at 1:2. lots of lenses that were only
close focusing 1:4 were labeled as macro however.
Christian wrote:
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses.
I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:43:12 -0400, Walter Hamler wrote
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest
Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH
has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They
also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A .
Walter Hamler wrote:
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF,
for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4
in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm
f/2.8 A .
Anyone know anything about these
On 3/13/07, Walter Hamler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF,
for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4
in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm
f/2.8 A .
Anyone
I have few experience with macro lenses 'cos I only own two:
* Tamron SP 70-210 3.5-4 Macro which is good but not really a macro
lens (a zoom even macro will never be a really good macro lens imo)
* Pentax FA 100/3.5 macro (really a Cosina lens). I find it good. It
was veeery slow to ficus with
Hi Walter,
Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider?
Tamron SP 90/2.5 ?
Cheers,
Peter
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend
a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others are
too
long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast
manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the
SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are
a
I agree with that - I've been using an early version of the 90 mm SP Tamron for
years. It's excellent.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Walter,
Anyone know anything about these or others
I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is
close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the 90mm
Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro Takumar. I
often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I want it with
- Original Message -
From: Brian Walters
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is
close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the
90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro
- Original Message -
From: Walter Hamler
Subject: Macro Lenses
I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax
AF,
for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm
f/4
in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a
I have the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. This is the first version with the
optical adapter that brings it to 1:! and includes a tripod mount. It's
an amazing lens with beautiful bokeh. You can probably find one for
around $150 US.
This is one of my favorite shots with that lens. It's right around
as well.
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
John Whittingham
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:09 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:43:12 -0400, Walter Hamler wrote
I need a macro
I found an A50/2.8 Macro with perfect optics and a bit of finish wear
from use at the local photo shop about a year and a half ago for
$130. Excellent lens, works great, extemely sharp yet remarkably good
rendering for general purpose use. Allows 1:2 without additions, add
a 25mm extension
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro
lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said,
I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when
used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better
macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series.
That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the
M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes
: Macro Lenses
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro
lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said,
I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when
used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used
That's precisely my experience as well. I bought the 50 mm macro takumar at a
good price thinking that it would be more use than my 90 mm Tamron on the DS.
It hasn't worked out that way.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:37:26PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro
lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series.
That's odd - I've got one that claims to be a Pentax F 50mm/f1.7.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
I've never seen a bad report on any macro lens. It seems to be something
that is simple to design.
Of course some are better than others. But I'm not familiar with any
that won't give you good results.
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro
for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet.
jco
-
You are not alone. One is coming later this year: DA 35 F2.8 Macro Limited.
Probably no aperture simulator.
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better
macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series.
-
The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3?).
Then it was produced in K mount through, I believe, 1977. Anyway, it is
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28 mm
F series.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Shel
What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should
Just ignore my last post. Misinformation I am tired, and was thinking of
the 55 F1.8.
But the 50 F1.7 did originate in 1977, and continued through M, A, F,
and FA versions until it was terminated recently.
Joe
-
The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3?).
Then
If you are using a DSLR it's tough to say. I use a Kiron 100mm f2.8
macro and it is outstanding on film - but has some Chromatic Aberration
on the *ist-D and more on the K10D. You can correct for the CA to some
degree in the RAW interpreter, but not 100%. I also see some CA using
the M50 f4
try this:
http://tinyurl.com/yvvekn
(my apologies if i spoiled someone's bidding...)
best,
mishka
On 3/13/07, Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen a bad report on any macro lens. It seems to be something
that is simple to design.
Of course some are better than others. But
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:37 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better
macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series.
-
The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3
There was certainly an F50/1.7 ... I have a pristine box for one
sitting on my stuff for sale pile. ;-)
Godfrey
On Mar 13, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better
macro
lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
- Original Message -
From: Brian Walters
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do
is
close rather than true macro and I find the extra distance with the
90mm Tamron on the *ist DS
try this:
http://tinyurl.com/yvvekn
(my apologies if i spoiled someone's bidding...)
best,
mishka
-
Well, that's interesting. I haven't heard of that make before. Is it a
Chinese product?
And don't worry, Mishka. I'll bet the seller has more than one.
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
So - I did say that I wasn't sure if there was a 50/1.7 past the A series:
... but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Francis
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:37:26PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It has been said here quite a few times
PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: 3/13/2007 5:01:56 PM
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
Hi Shel
What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite
good
on a DSLR?
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:37 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro
lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series
lens macro kit, and if you
go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brian Walters
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:20 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
I guess
, 2007 2:34 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like the look of my 50 and 28
mm F series.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
if i will get 100/3.5, I'll probably end up with 100/2.8 some day anyhow...
I know myself. Our local Pentax dealer offered me all mentioned four for
testing (I work for a local photo magazine time to time and therefore know
those people). First I have to finish some urgent works and after
The FA100/2.8 has appeared on eBay quite regularly so with a little
patience, you might get a good price.
Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
the insect season is abot to begin...
last yeaars I have used rather medium
format for macro shots, but now there's
a time to get good macro
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
