All my money....

[Guest .]

Well, I've never tested any other macro. I just went with a friend's recommendation and the only way anyone is going to separate me from my 105mm is by prizing it out of my cold, dead hands.

Sincere regards, Jim R

NAH ... Jim ... I am sure you will be using your 105mm for many many years! Maybe I will need your advice with the lens!!

So far, I did not manage much more than test-shots with it. I am very much looking forward for the next macro-season. Until then I will have to find a solution to adapt my old SOLIGOR ring-flash to it. Normally It fits filter mounts up to just 55mm.

See you with nice pictures

Klaus

 

[laurence2]

I ordered the 50 EX Macro. It is a fairly cheap unit, my money is currently limited, and the lens has good reviews. When I get some more money, I'll probably look at the 70, 105, 150, and 180.

It will be interesting to compare the Sigma macro to my current rather basic "macro" using the Super Takumar 55/1.8 and extension tubes.

The Takumar setup is VERY sharp but not particularly easy to use, and of course the Sigma 50 has 1:1 built in to the lens.

Laurence

 

[Guest .]

Well,

the shorter focal lengthes provide a wider depth of field at the same aperture stops compared to the longer ones.

Their clear disadvantage is, that they do not work on distances. So, you have to approach your scene very close. Most insects do not tolerate that and will surely take flight.

Focal lengthes between 100mm up to 200mm do best then.

If money is short just go the M42 way. If you are a bit handy, working manual aperture-control you can reach a very good image quality this way.

View attachment 1146

This one I did with a 30 year old PORST 75-260mm MACRO-Zoom that I additionally had on a bellows (macro-tubes do the same job!) ... SD9

You can have similar equipment very cheaply.

See you with nice pictures

Klaus

 

[laurence2]

I respect the opinions on this forum. After all, all I have to do is look at the images that you folks create!

I have decided to cancel the order for the 50mm, based on the VERY logical and very good information above.

I "see the light"

about having a bit of distance for macro images.

Even though I don't generally shoot insects and small life forms, you are correct in that having a bit of distance
to work with can only be a proviso for better usage of the macro fields.

In addition, I do have, as mentioned earlier, a very nice 55/1.8 Takumar and extension tubes that might be
just as "handy" as the Sigma 50. And of COURSE I should look at a bit longer focal lengths in the M42
standard. In fact, I may be able to purchase a Kiron 105/2.5 that goes to 1:1. I know that this is a fairly
highly renowned lens, so it is probably worth a try.

THANK YOU! This is one of the benefits of the forum, and I DO tend to listen to advice!

Laurence

 

[foveonfan]

I "see the light"

Ah, a statement usually attributed to an SDxx user.

Sincere regards, Jim R

 

[laurence2]

Jim (or anybody), I understand that most Pentax K mount lenses can be mounted on the SA mount? I have also heard that you have to cut off the aperture level to avoid it hitting the IR Filter/Dust Protector. Is this the way it goes with the Pentax K lenses?

 

[foveonfan]

Sorry, Laurence, not my territory.

Regards, JR

 

[netzuser]

Hi Larry,
basicly you can put Pentax K lenses on a Sigma.
Ok,you have to remove or cut the aperture level first.
I think removing is the better way,no dust, and it can be put back if needed.
The other thing is the Pentax K bayonet is a little bit smaller than the Sigma.
On a Sigma you can shift the lense sideways ~1mm.
If you can live with that go ahead.
Regards
Uwe
BTW: @ Jim + Larry,you guys give me a hard time to follow your conerversation.
I have to use my DCE (Dictionary of Contemporary English) more and more.

 

[foveonfan]

Well, Uwe, as life should be all about learning something new on a daily basis, I'm glad to be of service!

Regards, Jim R

 

[netzuser]

I'm glad to be of service!
Thank you Jim,
another phrase I learned today.
Regards
Uwe