Good more than 70mm macro not too heavy or expensive?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by threebees, May 3, 2013.

  1. threebees

    threebees Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Mar 13, 2013
    I have been doing a long search and I'm going crazy about macros. I can't figure out the weight of a Tamron 90 2.8 and other suggested lenses. I don't want to carry a 600grams lens, 300-400 grams would be enough.

    I know that a suggested lens is olympus OM 50 3.5 but I would prefer longer lens and full 1:1

    It's going to match a future Panasonic G

    Thanks a lot for your help!
     
  2. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    Interesting question. I just weighed my Kiron 105/2.8 and it is about 725g with adapter. But I used to shoot with the Konica Hexanon 55mm macro, it comes with a Hexanon "macro adapter" that is essentially an extension tube that couples with the aperture mechanism and brings it up to 1:1. It definitely weighed a lot less than the Kiron and was a pretty great lens as well.
     
  3. phigmov

    phigmov Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 4, 2010
    Most of the manufacturers had 50mm macro's that would go to 1:2 and 1:1 with an adaptor. You can use additional extension tubes to get you more reach.

    They're generally all pretty sharp - I've used the Nikon f2.8 50 + pk13 adaptor + Olympus f3.5 50 with good results.

    If you're just getting started you may also want to look at reverse mount adaptors - they screw into your lenses filter mount threads and then mount to the camera - effectively reversing the lens and magnifying close things rather than shrinking further things. These can be had pretty cheaply but they're not really as nice as a dedicated macro lens.
     
  4. manzoid

    manzoid Mu-43 Regular

    137
    Jun 9, 2011
    Perhaps the Komine made 55mm f2.8 Vivitar macro would do the trick. Apparently the Pentax version is 312g.

    Vivitar 55mm F2.8 1:1 macro Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

    I have the nikon version and I am pretty happy with it. There are samples in the archive here that will give you an idea of what it can do in hands more skilled than mine.

    You should be able to pick one up for less than $100. I choose it based on good sample shots and reviews, and I also liked the idea of the faster 2.8 aperture and being able to go from infinity to 1:1 without having to stop and connect extension tubes.

    Also with the Tamron, there are quite a number of versions that are 90mm macro. Some require an extension tube to reach 1:1 I believe. If you can workout the specific model you should be able to find the weight through googling.

    EDIT: just remembered more than 70mm. D'oh! But I am leaving the post in case you think 55mm is close enough or someone else finds it useful. Other cheap and light-ish options might be the 2x vivitar macro teleconverter with any like mount 50mm or the 100m 3.5 cosina made vivitar (though I think it's only 1:2)
     
  5. mnhoj

    mnhoj There and back again

    Dec 3, 2011
    Los Angeles
    John M
    Here's an adaptall Tamron 90mm 2.8 that weighs around 400 grams. Has an aperture ring and you don't have to pay the extra for AF.:smile:

    Tamron Telephoto SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro Adaptall MF Lens B57-100

    I believe the AF versions are around the same weight in case you've spotted a used copy.
    The old F2.5 Tamron adaptall(52b) might be nice but only goes to 1:2. A little over 400 grams. It is a bit shorter in length which might be desirable.

    I use a Nikon 100 F2.8E(215 grams) and a set of K-rings. Min. focus distance to front of the lens is about 11".
    Here's a sample at max. magnification. Between 1:2 and 1:4 if my calculations are correct.
    8705528727_b42971dd58_z.
     
  6. heli-mech

    heli-mech Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Mar 9, 2012
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Andrew
    Minolta 100mm f4 can usually be found for a decent price and is under 400g and sharp at macro ranges, however you do need the matching extension tube to get to 1:1, but it is just a hollow tube so it doesn't add much weight.
     
  7. WasOM3user

    WasOM3user Mu-43 Veteran

    458
    Oct 20, 2012
    Lancashire, UK
    Paul
    I can confirm that both the older Tamron SP90 (model 52B & 52BB) are around 420gm without adaptor but the Apaptall 2 to m4/3 adaptors are lighter than some others.

    My model 52BB with a Hoya UV filter and A2-m4/3 adaptor but no hood or caps hits the scales at 526g.

    As mentioned by others this will only do 1:2 without the matching extension tube but it does make quite a good sports tele when not used up close.
     
  8. threebees

    threebees Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Mar 13, 2013
    I really like this forum, your answers are very fast and clear. Thank you!

    I wanted to use the macro for some nervous animals shots like butterflies and lizards, so I thought that longer distance would be useful. I see now that good macros are heavy and I must say goodbye to carrying the lens up the hills.

    I have also been looking at prices and most of them are quite expensive. That makes me think in going directly to zuiko 60 macro if I save some money. Sometimes there are not big differences between this lens and good old macros, and perhaps I should wait and save money. While I can afford that I will continue with a 50 1.8 with extension tubes, though I am looking for that Tamron SP90.

    If anyone is interested, I've found other around 400grams macro lens, the Zuiko 80mm:

    Zuiko for Macro-photography - PART FOUR

    Thanks a lot guys!
     
  9. heli-mech

    heli-mech Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Mar 9, 2012
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Andrew
    Re 80mm zuiko: it is a bellows lens, so you need either a bellies or olympus's extended tube.
     
  10. WasOM3user

    WasOM3user Mu-43 Veteran

    458
    Oct 20, 2012
    Lancashire, UK
    Paul
    Other alternatives could be (if you already have the extension tubes) the non macro OM 85mm or 100mm. The 100mm f2.8 is only 70g heavier than an Oly 50mm f1.8 at 235g.

    Other (unproven as yet) option perhaps the new 60mm Sigma with Kenko extension tubes. This should save weight as no adaptor and would retain autofocus as well but then the cost is getting closer to native 60 macro
     
  11. threebees

    threebees Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Mar 13, 2013
    Thanks you very much, I need to study all your options.

    I had understood that there was a bellow version and a normal one, but probably got lost and confused with so much information.