I was thinking about obtaining the 100mm macro, but now I am hesitating. I actually don't
buy a 100mm macro but a 60-70mm macro. Is this worth the money? Hmm..., hmmm....
Enablers, speak up please!
Just took a few measures -
- at 1:1 the A* 200 f4 has working room (distance from front of the lens to subject) of ~305mm.
- at 1:1 my Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro has a working room of ~135mm (it too uses floating elements)
- at 1:1 my M50mm f4 (on 24mm of tubes plus its own extension) has a working room of ~75mm. This takes into account the extension of the front of the lens due to the focusing mechanism. The subject was close to 100mm from the front glass, but the front glass is recessed at least a couple of CM.
- a plain 50mm f2 on 50mm of tubes has a working distance of ~90mm (again measured from the lip of the lens itself, not the glass.
The Kiron is an excellent lens optically, but probably falls a little short (literally) compared to other 100mm macros in terms of working distance. It loses about 5mm due to recession of it's front element. But you still get a third more working room (and where there is less of it, it really counts) and the 200mm macro gives over 3 times the working room.) Maybe someone with a Pentax 100mm macro could run the same test.
One thing - it was frightfully obvious even just through the finder that the quality of the M50 f2 on tubes was nothing at all close to the quality of any of the macros. So if you wanted to got hat route you would have to at least be sure to get a really good 50mm. Though a 50mm with a more flush front would work well.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
- - - - - - - - - -
