Recommend good/cheap Macro Lens from KEH?

F

filmguy123

Veteran
Looking for an old, used, vintage Macro lens (maybe 50mm-85mm) from KEH.com - any suggestions?

I have a Nikon, 4/3rds, and Minolta adapter. But if it was the right lens for a good price, I wouldn't mind investing in another adapter as well.
 
filmguy123 said:
Looking for an old, used, vintage Macro lens (maybe 50mm-85mm) from KEH.com - any suggestions?

I have a Nikon, 4/3rds, and Minolta adapter. But if it was the right lens for a good price, I wouldn't mind investing in another adapter as well.
Click to expand...

I have an excellent Nikkor 55mm Micro f3.5 on my desk....staring me in the face . Been begging me to sell it for weeks.

Iris has been de clicked and the lens was serviced same time. Its very crisp and sharp.

You need to know that my desk is Auckland , New Zealand.

http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_688377.html

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#55micro
 
Last edited:
theReflex said:
Depending on what you are trying to get, macro extension tubes with one of your existing lenses can be a really economical way to go. You lose infinity focus while they are attached, but because they simply move the lens forward without any optics inline, they don't degrade the quality of your lens.

http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=783
Click to expand...

Cool!!

So if I get one of these... do I just need ONE to work with all of my different lenses? I have a Minolta, Nikon, and 4/3rds to MFT adaptors. If I buy one of these, do I just add it onto the AF100 first, and then add the adaptor on top of that, and then all of my lenses are 1:1 macro at whatever focal length the lens is? Is there any light loss?

Also, what does it mean to "lose infinity focus"? I don't really understand that concept or what it actually means in practice.

Thanks for the help. This could be great. Starting out, I am on a very tight budget so this could be perfect!
 
Just picked up a Nikon 105mm Micro f/4 in excellent condition from KEH for around $150.
Great lens.
Nope - not selling.
 
Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 is indeed a swell lens. Slightly edged out in sharpness by the newer 55/2.8.

Many reversed wide-angles work well... I still need to post some samples I did reversing a Tamron 4-12 1.2. The 20/1.7 is excellent reversed, but unfortunately you're stuck with whatever aperture you chose before you reversed it.

Other macro toys include a Nikon PB-6 bellows (effectively an adjustable extension ring) and a M42 mount SMC-Takumar 100/4 which is delightful.

A very good lens that I'd very much like to find at reasonable cost is the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro. Borrowed one once and was very very very happy with its results... also makes a great interview lens.
 
snp said:
Just picked up a Nikon 105mm Micro f/4 in excellent condition from KEH for around $150.
Great lens.
Nope - not selling.
Click to expand...

Un believable!. Are you and I living in a parallel universe Scott.

I have been on the hunt for one of these for about two weeks.
 
My favorite macro lens is the manual lens Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 from Nikon. With the m4/3 format this macro gets you really close to your subject. Close-up to approx. 0.9 ft (1:2 reproduction ratio). http://goo.gl/dqs8R
 
filmguy123 said:
Cool!!

So if I get one of these... do I just need ONE to work with all of my different lenses? I have a Minolta, Nikon, and 4/3rds to MFT adaptors. If I buy one of these, do I just add it onto the AF100 first, and then add the adaptor on top of that, and then all of my lenses are 1:1 macro at whatever focal length the lens is? Is there any light loss?

Also, what does it mean to "lose infinity focus"? I don't really understand that concept or what it actually means in practice.

Thanks for the help. This could be great. Starting out, I am on a very tight budget so this could be perfect!
Click to expand...

The tube goes between your adapted lens, and the body, so yea, you would only need one set for all. The actual magnification ratio is adjusted by adding length to the tube with the rings in the kit and yea 1:1 is possible with the kit I linked to. There is no light loss because there is no optical elements involved. By shifting the lens further away from the sensor, the minimum focus distance is decreased, at the same time the infinity focus is decreased. Therefore you can't focus at great distances while they are attached. Macro tubes are pretty common in the still photo world, they are often combined with macro lenses to get even greater magnification ratios for extreme work.
 
There actually is light loss using extension tubes and bellows - depending upon the extended flange distance, there can be a LOT of light loss. Macro ring lights and the like are very useful in these situations.
 
The only optical way to avoid appreciable light loss in macro photography is to use diopters in front of the lens.

Those m4/3 extension tubes look useful, so I just ordered a set.

-B
 
mcbob said:
There actually is light loss using extension tubes and bellows - depending upon the extended flange distance, there can be a LOT of light loss. Macro ring lights and the like are very useful in these situations.
Click to expand...

My BAD! I should really have my morning coffee before posting... what I MEANT to say was there was no appreciable IQ loss, of course there is light loss.
 
mcbob said:
Other macro toys include a Nikon PB-6 bellows (effectively an adjustable extension ring) and a M42 mount SMC-Takumar 100/4 which is delightful.
Click to expand...

I picked up an SMC-Macro Takumar at a pawn shop, with the original metal hood and case for $50. Made it even MORE delightful!
 
You might also consider the Canon FD 50mm F3.5 Macro, it would be a good excuse for buying an FD mount adapter from ciecio7. The cream of the crop in 50mm macro's are probably the Zeiss ZF 50mm f2 macro Planar and the Leica Elmarit R 60mm f2.8, neither are cheap.

I did a lot of work last summer with the Canon FD 50 on a GH1 at the same time that I had a Canon 60d with the Canon EF-S 60mm macro, I could see nothing to distinguish the EF-S 60 in terms of resolution, maybe a hair more contrast, I think most of the difference could be attributed to the different camera codecs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top