1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Best cheap macro option around 100mm?

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

  1. yhbae

    yhbae Mu-43 Regular

    41
    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).

    Thanks.
     
  2. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    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:
    https://www.mu-43.com/f17/lester-dine-kiron-105mm-f-2-8-1-1-macro-lens-minolta-md-mount-19771/

    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

    181
    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

    41
    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
    Fred
    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.

    Fred
     
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    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

    172
    Oct 24, 2011
    Portugal
    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

    41
    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?)....