1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Any thoughts on cheap but good adapted macro? Minolta?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by mikefromli, Jan 3, 2015.

  1. mikefromli

    mikefromli TalkEmount Regular

    49
    Dec 29, 2014
    Long Island, NY USA
    Michael
    My next purchase will the sel5018 so budget aside is the a good legacy combo for macro (pictures of watches for example) also for macro I imagine manual focus is easier to deal with

    Help out an emount newbie

    Any other legacy I need to get cause it's just too good of a deal?

    Which good is first adapter
     
  2. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    As the saying goes, almost every macro lens is a very good lens. First decision you have to make is the focal length: 50mm gives a wider angle but shorter working distances. Most people seem to prefer 100mm or so, but unfortunately these are a little more expensive and also bulkier and mostly heavier than 50mm lenses. For watches I'd prefer 100mm to get enough space for lighting between lens and subject; if you want to pick out details of the watch you get into real macro territory and then a bellows with a 50mm lens and a focussing rail is the best solution IMHO. I'm a fan of bellows units in the studio at home because of their flexibility but I don't take 'em out the door. Bellows units also take enlarger lenses (using an adapter ring) that are very good and can be had for very little money if you look around and the bellows itself doesn't have to be expensive either. Don't jump on the first offer at eBay, prices vary a lot.

    Seeing that you'll get an SEL-5018 I guess you have an APS-C camera which is actually an advantage over full-frame because you have larger working distances. However, I'd still prefer 100mm, it was my favorite focal length when using the NEX-6. I now switch between 100mm and 135mm for close-up work on the A7.

    As said, you can't go wrong with any of the older major brands as Minolta, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Leica (expensive), Pentax, Konica etc and also with third-party manufacturers like Tokina, Tamron, Vivitar, Panagor, Sigma and the likes. In short: it's very difficult to go wrong with a macro lens in terms of image quality! Get yourself one and then buy the appropriate cheap adapter for it from eBay.

    Concerning other lenses, when you have the SEL-5018 there's no reason to buy a cheap 50mm legacy lens IMHO. And I'd only buy other lenses if you start to feel a need for it, it's not like they'll be gone tomorrow.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  3. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    Mine

    1- I am absolutely in love with my 50mm Minolta. 1:1 Macro lens.
    www.dyxum.com/dforum/samples-minolta-mc-md-rokkor-50mm-f35-macro_topic103624.html
    [​IMG]

    https://www.talkemount.com/showthread.php?t=9088

    It can be used alone as a 1:2 close up everyday carry lens, or with the adapter that makes it a true 1:1 lens.

    https://www.talkemount.com/showthread.php?t=9635


    2- Any lens can be converted via Macro extension tubes. A great idea if you don't want to buy another lens.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...tention&_nkw=E+Mount+Macro+extention&_sacat=0
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    • Like Like x 1
  5. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    Sorry Dave, if a lens needs extension to reach 1:1 magnification, it is NOT called 1:1 macro lens.

    I know you like the lens a lot. I like mine too. But let's not confuse other people.

    At 50 ~ 60mm range, here're the 1:1 SLR macro lenses I know:

    * Pentax Takumar 50mm f/4 Macro preset version
    * Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro
    * Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro
    * Yashinon Tomioka (Mamiya) 60 2.8 macro
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ztryfe

    ztryfe TalkEmount Veteran

    224
    Aug 19, 2014
    Mexico
    Vic
    I have both a 50mm macro (the minolta discussed here) and a 105mm vivitar series 1 macro. The 50mm is great for indoors and still subjects, if you go that way, make sure you get the adapter mentioned by the other folks (it's kind of an matched extension tube) if you are more into insects or living things in general, the 100mm will give you more working distances, at the expense of bulkiness.

    In your position, and knowing what I know now, I would get a 100mm macro and the sel5018 later. You get a good rig for watches and the possibility of other kids of subjects. But I'm more into living things macro shoots.

    Just my 2 cents
     
  7. mikefromli

    mikefromli TalkEmount Regular

    49
    Dec 29, 2014
    Long Island, NY USA
    Michael
    I have the 6000 with the 16-50 and the 55-210 and the 16mm 2.8 with the two adapters (Uwa and fisheye) figured the 50 1.8 would round it out to start
     
  8. mikefromli

    mikefromli TalkEmount Regular

    49
    Dec 29, 2014
    Long Island, NY USA
    Michael
    Damn you sonystore got the sel3518 tonight
     
  9. dannat

    dannat TalkEmount Regular

    86
    Jun 22, 2014
    VIC
    i have the vivitar 55/2.8 -1:1..its very good if you can nail the focus
     
  10. chrid

    chrid Super Noob

    807
    May 5, 2014
    australia
    Chris
    I do love my Yashica af 60mm 2.8 1:1 Cost about $200 which is roughly what they go for on evil bay, the adapter was expensive though, Fotodiox pro adapter (only adapter I could find) was about $70 but I have 2 other lenses that use it

    15233305349_6389479d33_b. _DSC7884 by Chris Thackray, on Flickr

    I've posted this before but its a good example of what this lens can do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Gandalf

    Gandalf TalkEmount Regular

    59
    Sep 5, 2013
    Unfortunately, you are zero percent correct in this. ANY lens requires extension to focus closer than infinity; that is what the focusing ring does. ANY lens, when extended its own focal length past infinity focus, will produce a 1:1 image.

    As for the Minolta macro, it was sold WITH the extension tube because the engineers chose, rather than putting all 50mm of extension into the helical mechanism, to put 25mm of extension in the helical and 25mm in an extension tube. Canon did exactly the same thing with the FD 50mm f/3.5 macro lens. Both are 1:1 macro lenses. It makes no difference whether extension is built into a helical focusing mechanism or an extension tube or a bellows; all do exactly the same thing.
     
  12. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    Based on what you say, any lens can be called 1:1 macro lens? Sorry, I cannot agree.

    I'm not questioning whether or not you can reach the 1:1 magnification with extension tube. I know you can.

    All major manufacturers have/had 50~60mm native 1:2 macro lenses. But they never call these 1:1 macro lenses. They usually clearly specify the max magnification with and without extension.

    There's quite a big difference in terms of usage and convenience, between a native 1:1 macro lens and a native 1:2 macro lens that requires a separate extension tube to reach 1:1. When you have the extension tube on, your focusing range is limited, you cannot focus to far distance any more. That's why native 1:1 macro lens is more flexible and desirable.

    The design of native 1:1 macro lens can also differ a lot from native 1:2 + extension. It's not limited to a simple matter of adding extension in the helicoid. It can involve moving lens element(s) too. If adding extension can give the same quality result, why does Tokina choose to put some glass in the matched extender for their 1:2 90mm/2.5 macro? 1:1 macro lens does take more design effort.

    There's a certain convention when you call a macro lens 1:1 lens. All I'm asking is to follow that convention and minimize confusion. I still maintain, if a lens requires separate tube/optics to reach 1:1, it's not a 1:1 macro lens.
     
  13. Kirkp

    Kirkp TalkEmount Regular

    151
    Nov 2, 2014
    I think most photographers would describe that as a 1:2 lens with a 1:1 extension.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Gandalf

    Gandalf TalkEmount Regular

    59
    Sep 5, 2013
    I never said that. I said "ANY lens, when extended its own focal length past infinity focus, will produce a 1:1 image." At no time did I claim that "any lens" is a macro lens. I said any lens is capable of producing a 1:1 reproduction ratio given enough extension, which is a fact.

    Well if you want to use conventional terms, then let's get back to basics: it's not even macro UNTIL you reach 1:1. That's the conventional definition of macro. Less than 1:1 is "closeup." As for calling a lens "a 1:1 lens" well I'll confess I wasn't aware that the manufacturers even played to that audience. Used to be, a manufacturer built a macro lens, and they called it a macro lens, and photographers understood what a macro lens was. I do blame the manufacturers for dumbing down the entire audience when they started adding a 1:4 close-focusing cam to zoom lenses, and then called the result macro.

    If I had to guess, I'd guess their matched extender is actually a teleconverter. A lot smaller than the 45mm extension tube they'd need to get from 1:2 all the way to 1:1, and that would resonate with today's photographers, many of whom can't understand why a 300mm f/2.8 lens won't fit in their pocket.

    ------------------------
    But getting back to the 1:1 thing: my Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro lens actually has magnifications marked on the lens barrel, printed out with lines that line up to the back edge of the focusing ring as it extends. Those magnifications START at 1:2 and go up to 1:1. And they didn't bother with marking magnifications less than 1:2 because there just wasn't any reason; those were just closeups, not macros. So clearly the folks at Canon knew it was a "1:1 lens" although they didn't call it that. If it was a 1:1 lens when Canon built it, I reckon it still is.

    So there you have it. A macro lens (it's actually optimized for 1:1 magnification) that requires the photographer to add a separate extension tube to actually reach that point. Why did they do it? Because it was good design. By limiting the range the helicoid had to extend, they kept costs down and reduced complexity.
     
  15. Austrokiwi

    Austrokiwi TalkEmount Regular

    63
    Feb 2, 2014
    22nd District Vienna
    Ian Fenn
    When I first started MAcro I jumped in and purchased a macro lens. I wish some one had told me this: before you jump to a macro lens start off with an enlarger lens mounted either on extension tubes or better a cheap bellows. Often an enlarger lens will outperform some of the moderately priced macros. You will be able to get magnifications much greater than 1:1
     
  16. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    Yup. Even at 1:2 it is pretty good

    I just usually think of it as a set.
     
  17. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    They did not call the lens 1:1 because that would cause much confusion, even accusation of false advertisement. Instead, they just spec'ed the max magnification with and without extension.

    Let's say a bellow macro lens that is designed for 1:1 ~ 2:1, does anyone call it a 2:1 macro lens?

    I think this is where we disagree: Your definition of 1:1 macro lens seems to be "whether a macro lens is designed for 1:1, using extension or not"; I take it simply be the lens's native max magnification. If you insist on your definition, let's just agree to disagree. I just feel your definition is not what most people use, and can cause unnecessary confusion.
     
  18. Austrokiwi

    Austrokiwi TalkEmount Regular

    63
    Feb 2, 2014
    22nd District Vienna
    Ian Fenn
    Gandalf: You are incorrect and have painted yourself into a corner. You use of the term is not the normal use. Direct01=> it is misleadign to refer to the minolta MC 50mm or MD 50mm macros as 1-1 when the User manuals refer to them as 1-2 lenses. Neither on the box's or in the instruction manuals are the minolta mc/md 50mm macro lenses described as 1-1.

    The minolta Minolta MC 50mm macro lens user manual has this as the first sentence of the first page " This extremely useful lens focuses all the way from infinity to half life-size images simply by turning its focusing ring" we all know half lifesize is 1-2. on the specifications page the lens is described as having magnification of infinity to 0.5 x. The specifications go on to state the magnification can be increased to life sized by using the life sized adapter, or with extension tubes even greater magnification can be found. According to your unusual approach when I stick that lens on my bellows and set it to 5-1 magnification I would be calling it a 5-1 lens that is just wrong!! The canon FD200mm macro was advertised as being a true 1-1 lens while the nikon version was advertised as only a 1-2. stick a life size adapter on the nikon and it too would render life sized pictures. 1-1 designation only applies to the lens mounted on the camera not the lens plus adapters of any sort.

    My mamiya sekor C 80mm macro like the minolta MC and MD 50mm macro lenses also has the markings for 1-1 magnification but the lens its self is described by the manufacturer as a 1-2 lens that can produce 1-1 images when coupled with the life sized adapter. when even the manufacturers refer to them as being native 1-2 lenses how in the world can you maintain they are native 1-1 lenses? Now days nearly, if not, all macro lenses sold can reach 1-1 magnification without an adapter. IN the manual focus days 1-1 was only added to a lenses designation when it was able to focus to 1-1 without the use of extension rings or lifesized adapter.

    Gandalf and Direct01: before you continue this erroneous argument go read some macro photography references... and then if you can find any that agree with your arguments come back and tell us.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    At this point, I as an outsider just reading a full page of these arguments, I come to ask myself: "Does it really even matters what one calls them???" ...just my 0,02c
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Austrokiwi

    Austrokiwi TalkEmount Regular

    63
    Feb 2, 2014
    22nd District Vienna
    Ian Fenn
    NOt really but I find it really annoying to see the MInolta MD 50mm macro being called 1-1. It confuses newbies and it is not the lenses proper name/designation as set down by the manufacturer. (my extra half cents worth)
     
    • Like Like x 1