Best cheap macro option around 100mm?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by yhbae, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. yhbae

    yhbae Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 19, 2011
    I currently own a Raynox 250, which gets attached on either 14-150 or 100-300 which sort of works ok. But dof is razor thin and if I try to compensate for this by stepping down significantly, the shutter speed simply becomes unreasonable unless I have a bright light source. I don't really want to carry any external flash nor a tripod. Also, I'd like to have some distance between myself and the object hence the 100mm choice.

    Given this, which macro lens would fit the bill?

    - m4/3 Panny 45mm is super expensive.
    - 4/3 Oly 35mm is a bit too short
    - 4/3 Oly 50mm is not true 1:1 and also a bit too short

    Anything else? At this point, I don't mind venturing into other mounts as long as the lens isn't too big, is sharp enough and is cheap (ideally, used).

  2. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    If you want one of the best macro lenses ever made for cheap (around $200), check out the sale thread by lattiboy. He's selling a Kiron 105mm f2.8 lens for around $190. It's a minolta mount and can be adapted easily. It may not be light, but it's one of the best macro lenses ever made.

    Here's his thread:

    EDIT: IMHO, if you want to do macro (1:1 or more) photography, a tripod or a flash is a must.
  3. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL
    The razor-thin DOF is not an artifact of your lens choice, it's a fact of life in macro photography. A specialized macro lens will give you higher image quality, but you'll still be fighting the too-thin DOF and not enough natural light to be able to stop down to get more DOF.
  4. yhbae

    yhbae Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 19, 2011
    Aha, so even with a native macro lens, if everything else being equal, I will end up with exact same dof as I would have using the Raynox? I didn't know that!
  5. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Real Name:
    Yes. For the same image size and aperture you'll get the same depth of field no matter what focal length or method of getting the magnification.

  6. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Real Name:
    I'd normally say something unbiased like "most macro lenses are good etc. etc.", but no, I'll be straight this time: try to find a Minolta Macro 100mm 1:4 (with or without Rokkor designation). It's amazing and shouldn't cost you more than about $100.
  7. RSilva

    RSilva Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 24, 2011
    Consider the SMC Takumar 100mm F4. It's sharp, sharp, sharp. It´s only 1:2 magnification but on a mu43 body it becomes a 1:1 macro. I have used it for shooting bugs because 100mm becomes 200mm, you can take photos at a 45cm distance from your subject, with 1:1 magnification.
  8. yhbae

    yhbae Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 19, 2011
    Thanks for the suggestions, buys.

    IF I choose not to go with a dedicated macro option but get a flash, would something like Sunpak PF20XD work for a macro work? Basically, I'm looking for something portable and cheap but sufficient. I don't think you can keep this flash on the hotshoe so I really don't know how I would mount this close to the object (on top of the lens?)....