SLR Film user needing Macro Lens advice

gstyla1 · 15-09-2008, 12:51 PM

Hi All,

I am very new to photography and use an old film-based camera: Minolta Dynax 500si

I am best described as a ‘Point and Click’ user but am eager to venture into more areas. One interest I have, is in taking photo’s of things very close up....like Insects/Flowers etc...Some of the photo's i have seen on here are mindblowing to me. From what I have read online I need a ‘Macro’ lens? Is that right? I found the following info on Macro lenses and this led to me thinking I would need one:

· 50–60mm range typically used for product photography and small objects

· 90–105mm range the standard focal range used for insects, flowers, small objects

· 150–200mm range gives more working distance — typically used for insects and small animals

My next question is therefore – Do you know which lens would enable a novice like me, to take very close up photos of Insects, Flowers etc with my Minolta Dynax 500si? If so what are my options and prices? I have just spoken to a shop and they had the following:

Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro 72ED Boxed £219

Is this the cheapest option for me? I am happy to buy from anywhere if the price is good, new/second-hand etc...

I have tried to read through this forum and do some basics, so please bear with me as this is all very daunting at present.

Thanks in advance,
G

Fozzybear · 15-09-2008, 1:45 PM

I think it's probably one of the cheapest ways - you can buy extension rings that fit between your existing lens and camera that allow you to focus closer but a dedicated macro lens is more flexible and will probably give better quality.

I have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF and it's a superb lens, very sharp! It can do 1:1 macro, which basically means you will fill the frame with a subject the same size - 36mm across for 35mm film. a half size or 1:2 lens would fill the frame with something twice as big - 72mm, while a 2:1 double life size lens (pretty specialist!) would fill the fram with something 18mm across.

Yandros · 15-09-2008, 1:45 PM

Hiya,

Firstly, you sooo need to move to digital. On a 3 day drip to Rome recently I thought nothing of shooting the equivalent of 20 rolls of film. I will typically shoot a whole 'roll' on a single macro subject, and see the results immediately - which means the learning process for beginners is an order of magnitude easier. I can't stress this enough! A Sony A200 body which will work with your Minolta lenses is about £220. A used A100 will be even less.

As for macro lenses - yes, that Tamron 90mm f2.8 is one of the very best macro lenses you can buy. The only slight complication is that as a film user, your camera is what is known in DSLR terms as 'full frame' Most DLSRs have a a sensor that is smaller than a 35mm negative. This means we get 1.5x magnification for free. It also means that a 90mm lens is effectively 135mm for us. So a 90mm Tamron lens for you is the same as the 60mm for us cropped sensor digital folks. This isn't too tragic, particularly if you do move to digital.

gstyla1 · 15-09-2008, 1:58 PM

Many thanks guys.

I have been toying with the idea of going Digital, but i still like the mystery of film, it kind of adds to my excitement when they are getting processed....you never know what will be good or not. One day maybe....

Also, due to my budget constraints i cannot justify £200 on a lens at the minute sadly(If i could i may have looked at a Digital body as suggested). I was really hoping for something sub £100 if possible?

Again, i really appreciate you taking the time to help me with my questions.

Cheers
G

happyhomer · 15-09-2008, 2:42 PM

I suspect that to get a good macro lens you'll need to spend a bit more than £100; lenses tend to hold their value so even a second-hand one won't cost much less than it would new. That said, if you get a good lens now it is an investment; if you go to digital later you can keep the lens as already said.
For what it's worth I'm in a similar situation to yourself; resolutely sticking with film, though not averse to going digital in the future (when full-frame becomes more affordable!). I use Canon and wanted a macro lens, so invested in the 100mm Canon version, knowing that it will stick with me if/when I go to digital. I've just had some 18"x12" enlargements (shot on Reala), and the prints are incredible!

Yandros · 15-09-2008, 3:04 PM

A reversing ring might be the cheapest way of getting into macro, particularly if you have a 50mm prime handy. You can pick one up for about 20 quid.

Happyhomer - I'm not sure that full frame is worth worrying about to be honest. I'm happy with the DOF I get from APS-C, I've got the wide end sorted with a 12-24mm (ie 18mm on FF), I get 1.5x on my telephotos, and I'm using the best part of the lens. The only thing that appeals about FF is the high ISO acheived by the likes of the D3/D700.

The whole digital darkroom process is so revolutionary that I can't begin to imagine going back to film. Any minor advantages film still has with things like dynamic range are totally overwhelmed by the other factors.

gstyla1 · 15-09-2008, 3:20 PM

Ok.....you have all got me thinking now. I currently have the 35-70mm standard Minolta lens with the Minolta Dynax500si. I bought a 75-300mm AF Minolta lens last week also for it which i am very pleased with too.

If....big if.....i did buy a Digital Sony Alpha A200 i am guessing that the above lenses would still be ok for use?

Mike.P® · 15-09-2008, 3:30 PM

Go on to Ebay or trawl and have a look for manual focus macro lenses for your Minolta. You can get some very good glass on there and as long as you dont want auto focus (and to be honest you dont need it doing macro anyway as you will find manual is much more precise) you will pick one up for under £100.
The 2 best (I have both) are either the Tamron you have seen but in a older Adaptall 2 mount (make sure you get the 1:1 version) or if you can find one a Vivitar series 1 f2.8 macro (has to be made by Kiron so serial number of lens has to start with 22). The Vivitar is a heavy chunk of glass but will blow away any of the newer macro lenses for image quality. It is widely recognised as one of the 3 best macro lenses out there.

Yandros · 15-09-2008, 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstyla1

Ok.....you have all got me thinking now. I currently have the 35-70mm standard Minolta lens with the Minolta Dynax500si. I bought a 75-300mm AF Minolta lens last week also for it which i am very pleased with too.

If....big if.....i did buy a Digital Sony Alpha A200 i am guessing that the above lenses would still be ok for use?

Yes I thing they'll work. Pirate is your man for answering that though (and all things Sony/Minolta). Your best bet though will be to drop into your nearest camera store with your lenses and try them on an A200 body

happyhomer · 16-09-2008, 8:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yandros

Happyhomer - I'm not sure that full frame is worth worrying about to be honest. I'm happy with the DOF I get from APS-C, I've got the wide end sorted with a 12-24mm (ie 18mm on FF), I get 1.5x on my telephotos, and I'm using the best part of the lens. The only thing that appeals about FF is the high ISO acheived by the likes of the D3/D700.

The whole digital darkroom process is so revolutionary that I can't begin to imagine going back to film. Any minor advantages film still has with things like dynamic range are totally overwhelmed by the other factors.

Yandros, I'm certainly not fretting about full-frame (or digital at all, for that matter), but I haven't got the inclination to to re-learn about what focal-length lens does what in which situation, and I am too used to having a nice large image in the viewfinder.

TBH it's the whole digital darkroom thing that is the biggest factor in me sticking with film. That side of photography just doesn't appeal to me, and I'm lucky enough to have a branch of Jessops that produces excellent prints.

However, don't get me wrong; I'm not a "digital isn't real photography" Luddite, in fact for me I can see some very real advantages in going digital (variable ISO, more scope for bracketing), it's just that on balance I'm happy to stick with film for now

springtide · 16-09-2008, 9:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstyla1

Ok.....you have all got me thinking now. I currently have the 35-70mm standard Minolta lens with the Minolta Dynax500si. I bought a 75-300mm AF Minolta lens last week also for it which i am very pleased with too.

If....big if.....i did buy a Digital Sony Alpha A200 i am guessing that the above lenses would still be ok for use?

KM Lens compatibility - take a look at:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Almost all KM AF lenses will work, but there are one or two older Sigma/Tamron lenses that might have an issue (due to them reverse engineering the lens mount)
There's a database of most of the 'A Mount' on Dyxum (as well as other places). These will tell you whether they have an issue or not (most don't)
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp
Just remember that there is a 1.5x crop factor, so a 50mm on APS-C (cropped) looks like a 75mm lens (so your wide angles are not so wide, but your zooms are longer)

If money is tight, I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a reasonably prices DSLR for not much money.

Have a search for:

Minolta 5D (6MP - plastic fantastic)
Minolta 7D (6MP - similar to 5D, but in Mag Alloy and built like a tank)
Sony A100 (10MP - Sony's first DSLR and the replacement of the 5D)

Try Ebay....

The For Sale section on Dyxum:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_topics.asp?FID=7&PN=1

And also the For Sale section on AVForums:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/digital-camera-camcorder-classifieds/

Also, I think Pirate has an A100 for sale.

You'll get great results even with the 6MP KM 5D or 7D. Haven't looked at the prices of these two cameras for a while (they were selling pretty cheaply), but they 'might' go for more money than the A100 due to people collecting the old KM stuff - but you'll need to look.

A new A200 can be had for £235 from Amazon (I think)

Yandros · 16-09-2008, 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happyhomer

Yandros, I'm certainly not fretting about full-frame (or digital at all, for that matter), but I haven't got the inclination to to re-learn about what focal-length lens does what in which situation, and I am too used to having a nice large image in the viewfinder.

TBH it's the whole digital darkroom thing that is the biggest factor in me sticking with film. That side of photography just doesn't appeal to me, and I'm lucky enough to have a branch of Jessops that produces excellent prints.

However, don't get me wrong; I'm not a "digital isn't real photography" Luddite, in fact for me I can see some very real advantages in going digital (variable ISO, more scope for bracketing), it's just that on balance I'm happy to stick with film for now

The focal length thing is no biggy actually. The only lens that has suffered appreciably is the 50mm, which changes from a 'normal' lens to a short tele. The plus is that you gain a cheap portrait lens, but the minus is you need to get a 30-35mm as a walkaround prime. In Nikon-land, this means the 35mm f2 and 28mm f2.8 are very popular.

I started off with film back in the 80s, and returned to photography a few years ago once digital had matured. The first fundamental change in the way you work is that you can shoot the equivalent of a roll of film when previously you would use 1-2 shots, trying several permutations. The fact that you get instant feedback means that you can almost always avoid horrible mistakes. For example, I did some macro shooting last night, and got my flash positioning hopelessly wrong to start with, but a quick look at the playback on the first shot told me what I was doing wrong. Next, I dump them onto a PC and what I've got "duff..duff...maybe...ooh nice!...duff...duff...etc". I probably only process about 2 in 10 shots. A bog standard 'sharpen, tweak levels, tweak colour, crop' job is less than 5 minutes - including thinking time, and the results compared to the starting image are like night and day. If you get the impression that digital forces you to spend hours glued to photoshop, that's dead wrong. You CAN do that, but only if you're into seriously messing with the image.

gstyla1 · 16-09-2008, 10:03 AM

Thanks to everyone for their kind links and words - it really is appreciated.

I am now thinking that i should go and see a Sony A200 in action. If i can keep my exisitng lenses then i think it is a done deal. I see that DABS are selling the body for around £220 and i am wondering if i can get John Lewis to price Match it? Worth a shot i guess?

Then my hunt for a Macro lens will commence....

Thanks all, you are very kind to take the time to talk to a complete novice.

Cheers
G

happyhomer · 16-09-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yandros

If you get the impression that digital forces you to spend hours glued to photoshop, that's dead wrong. You CAN do that, but only if you're into seriously messing with the image.

Unfortunately I know that is what I'd do, judging by the amount of time I spend tweaking the odd scanned negative

I tend to be a serial meddler (I work in IT, so that may explain a lot!). Once my children are are bit older I should have a bit more time (and "possibly" some more £ to spend

) and I'll no doubt do the deed.

Anyway, back on topic, and gstyla1, I think that going to check out an A200 would be a fine idea; if you like the feel of it and it works with your current lenses then £220 is a good price.