Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 24, 2007, 10:28 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Rodney9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yeronga, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,518
Default

Hello, Does anyone know if these lenses are any good ?

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/3x-Telephoto-...QQcmdZViewItem

and

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/New-2x-Teleco...QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks, Rodney.
Rodney9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 24, 2007, 11:25 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Rodney,

From my experience with add-on converters with the FZ series Panasonics, those who have tried the Titanium branded ones felt they were little better than paperweights. The appropriate Panasonic, Olympus, Raynox, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Sony TCs mentioned and tested at CK Shene's site under the Panansonic FZ10 and FZ30 sections are the good ones. He's also tested some of the wide angle converters.

C-K's site is here: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/index.html

One major caveat about add-on TCs and WACs -- they can add significant weight to the part of the lens that moves when focusing on non-internal-focusing AF lenses. If you're planning on using one on an AF lens, make sure that the front element of the lens does not rotate, or you'll be putting much more stress on your AF motor -- so with these lenses, you should only use manual focus with one of these converters attached.

Scott


snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2007, 11:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Forget most front of lens magnifiers.... especially on an already long lens.... there are some that can but not cheap.

Some of he cheap Wides actually do OK often as the are condensing not magnifying.


You want magnification go rear like your second choice.

The Tamrron 1.4x is and excellent quality and low cost/ exposure impact way to go.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 1:06 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Rodney9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yeronga, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,518
Default

Thankyou Scott and Hayward,
What I really want is a affordable macro lens, then one day a fish-eye.
But every one I see including Tamron and Sigma cost my than my K100D camera.
Can you suggest any others ?

Rodney
Rodney9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 3:43 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

If 1:2 macro is good enough the Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm is a good choice. And unlike 1:1 macros you don't have to be right on top of the subject.... which is OK for flowers, etc... but few butterflys will allow that..

And The Sigma non APO version is around $130 and the APO version about $200
Also a very decent (especially for the money) mid to long zoom.

Those front wide converters while increase FOV/lower effective FL... they do nothing as far as macro capability goes.

And there are filter type diopters that give pseudo marco... but really just close up capability.... at the cost of the lens being good for little else with out removing them... where as a macro lens is a simple matter of just switching modes.



Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 5:02 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Rodney9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yeronga, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,518
Default

Thankyou Hayward,

I have the Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens, this lens is brilliant for telephoto, the sweet spot seems to be 200-220mm but to take macro shots you have to be approximately 4 feet away , which makes it very difficult for insects or in tight places. This is why I want a affordable macro for true close ups.

Rodney
www.wolf9.org
Rodney9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 5:38 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
nadnerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 319
Default

Have you considered extension tubes?
If you have a 50mm lense you should definitely pick up a set of tubes.
Ok they're probably not as good as a dedicated macro lense, but it's certainly a lot cheaper!

check out the macro gallery on my site, everything there was shot with a Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 and extenstion tubes.
nadnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 5:53 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Rodney9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yeronga, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,518
Default

nadnerb wrote:
Quote:
Have you considered extension tubes?
If you have a 50mm lense you should definitely pick up a set of tubes.
Ok they're probably not as good as a dedicated macro lense, but it's certainly a lot cheaper!

check out the macro gallery on my site, everything there was shot with a Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 and extenstion tubes.
I bought the Pentax K100D plus the Sigma 70-300mm 'APO' lens and also the Sigma 18-125mm, that's all, that's the best quality I could get.

Will extension tubes work on anything else ?

Rodney
Rodney9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 7:06 AM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ETs will work with any lens. whether you like the results is........

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 10:17 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Rodney9 wrote:
Quote:
What I really want is a affordable macro lens, then one day a fish-eye.
But every one I see including Tamron and Sigma cost my than my K100D camera.
Can you suggest any others ?

Rodney
Hi Rodney,

If you want to shoot critters, then you probably want something in the 90-100mm FL range.

You should consider manual focus lenses since most macro shooters I've seen don't really use AF for their macro work. There are quite a few used lenses in this category, some at bargain prices for "best in class" quality. Some research would be required to find some of these hidden gems.

I'ts been said generically that there are no really "bad" dedicated macro lenses. I agree with this from what I've seen. Harriet (mtngal) has the Phoenix 100 f3.5 macro and has posted some very nice results IMO. She's stated that the build quality is not the best, but it's not bad, and it's nice and light (@ 280 grams). The lens alone goes to 1:2, its included adapter will allow closer focusing giving you 1:1. At $120 USD new, I'd consider it.

Scott

Edit: Another thing that you might consider in a bargain macro would be is the Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Adapter. It is essentially a variable extension tube with optics to double the focal length of any lens. It will allow close focusing to give you full 1:1 macro, and the optics are good. Unfortunately it's only available occasionally used. Here's a comparison test between it and the Pentax D FA 100/2.8 Macro:

http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/macro3_shootout.html

This converter was made in both "A" (with electrical contacts) and "M" (without) configurations, so you need to be careful when looking for one. I have the "A" version, and personally don't use any lenses that don't take advantage of all the exposure automation available in my Pentax DSLRs.

Edit2: As far as a fisheye, I think that most would agree that the Zenitar 16mm 2.8 Fisheye is the best bargain. It's a Russian-made lens, "K" mount lens without electical contacts. It's available new through a number of ebay sellers with prices ranging from about $120-$150 USD. I don't have one, but it gets almost universal praise for its optics.
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:14 AM.