drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

I am using Pentax manual 50 mm f/4.0 macro lens (1:2) on Pentax K-5iis. I'm looking at manual Sigma 50 mm f/2.8 which is 1:1 image. I've fooled around with extension tubes a little but not a fan. What's the opinion on this move? Looking for increase in image size as well as quality. My question has more to do with the image outcome as opposed to opinions on the specific lenses. Thanks in advance!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'd say it depends on your use -- what you like to shoot macros of. Right off, personally I prefer my Asahi smc-Pentax-M 100mm f/4 Macro lens to my Asahi smc-Pentax-M 50mm f/4 Macro lens as it gives more working distance. Max magnification with only the lens is 1:2 with both. I do wish I had a 50mm A-series or FA-series Pentax Macro lens, but I don't. I also have a similar Pentax Takumar M-42 Screw Mount 50mm f/4 Macro Lens, and a modern Pentax-DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited lens for digital only. I also wish I had a longer digital Macro lens as well. If you shoot tiny insects and don't want to use extension tubes of a bellows (I have two or more sets of each), you might be better off with a lens that focuses 1:1. But I photograph a lot of Flowers and small to medium sized Sea Shells and very few of them are as small as 24x36mm (Film or FF) or 16x23mm (APS-C). So I don't think I'm missing much being limited to 1:2 w/o getting out the additional accessories. And even when I do, I shoot close-ups and Macro using a tripod (to set up) anyway. As for cameras as my tagline shows, I shoot Pentax! K-3, K-5, K-20D mostly today. Bottom Line to you might be if you need a 1:1 lens and not filling the frame now, get a 90mm, 100mm, or similar Macro Lens that does give 1:1, other wise you just have G.A.S. and might as well stick with what you have.

P.S., Great Choice of camera! (I don't really like my K-3 much as it is noisy in low light / high ISO)

drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

Thanks so much for your quick reply. I'm not planning to shoot live insects so not worried about getting so close and therefore not looking for increased focal length. Mostly shoot flowers and in winter would like to shoot interesting small objects in our home. GAS is part of it! Your experiences and insights are very helpful! Go Pentax! Thanks.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Looking back the K-3 was a G.A.S. purchase, wow 24MP! But I would have been happier with a K-5iis. If one of my others craps out that is what I'll look for. With my arthritis and other hand problems I don't think I can handle the much bigger and heavier K-1 FF! A lost dream for me. If I want FF, I have to use my many film cameras.

drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

I started with K100D, then K-x, and K-50. The K-50 developed the aperture block issue, apparently fairly frequent. That's when I obtained the K-5iis used. Never looked back. K-50 can be used in manual, but I haven't tried that. I am also having difficulty with hand-held shooting due to age??? as well as arthritis in my "shutter" hand thumb. Sucks! Keep on shootin'!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well, the 2.8 lens will be easier to focus wide open. Personally, I do not see significant image quality advantages for the 2.8 lens vs the f4 lens with tube except for ease of focus.

drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

That's kind of what I wanted to hear! Thank you.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I got my K-5 used as well. My hands are getting so bad that I bought a wireless remote shutter release system for my cameras as I too am having trouble holding my cameras in the traditional ways. I am going to try using a left-side handled (flash) bracket to hold with my now stronger left hand and use the wireless trigger with my now weak right hand. Though I sort of need a third hand to focus with. Also whence the possible switch to a lighter Fuji MILC.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

If I understand correctly, the probable main advantage of your 50mm 1:2 macro is that it had cost less. That is no detraction since such choices frees up funds to aim the GAS at other goodies.
I expect the Sigma 1:1 macro will cost more, but you will get a wider range of use out of it. Obviously you can go to 1:1 and fill the frame with smaller subjects and get closer to subjects. But it also will be able to frame the same subjects that you were getting with the 1:2 macro and so on. You could resell your 1:2 macro to defray some of the cost for getting the 1:1 lens. I have never heard of any one who is committed to the hobby of regretting an upgrade, and the 1:1 will be a major upgrade.
Interesting that a 50mm macro can go to 1:1.

drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

Thanks for the info- food for thought as I hadn't considered selling the 50 4.0. Thanks again.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

He is talking about two Vintage Film Era Macro lenses for his Pentax digital, as I am and have. These K-series or M-series lenses have little values today for resale. Say less then $100, certainly less than $200. A new DA or D FA Pentax or other macro lens would be more EXPENSIVE.

drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

Yes I’m aware that these are film era lenses as I have a number of these. And I don’t need the newer AF macro lenses so not much $$$. Thanks for your input!

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I photograph wildflowers and plants mostly, using both a 100mm macro lens and a 1:2 50mm lens (Canon), typically at magnifications of 1:4 to 1:1 depending on the subject. The narrower field of view and greater working distance with the 100mm macro make a big difference. Because of that, given the choice I always go to the 100mm lens whether I am shooting 1:1 or not.

Mike