I have manual focus Pentax gear. I've been using my A-series 50mm F/2.0 with extension tubes and/or a reversing ring for the "macro" photography that I do. I've been considering a dedicated macro lens, and have a question about the MF versus AF variants.
The MF macro lenses that I've looked at all go down to 1:2. After that you need extension tubes for 1:1. That is well and fine. However, I've noticed that almost all of the AF macro lenses that I've looked at tend to go to 1:1 ... without extension tubes. Presumbably this is because the rack&pinion and/or IF mechanisms allow a greater a bit more freedom in lens design than the helicoid does. I've not settled upon a focal length for a macro lens; my first guess is 100 mm, since I already have a 50mm, and I'd like some additional stand-off than I have now. I've looked idly at macro lenses. Comments on this list seem to indicate that the FA 200mm macro is even a *better* lens than the awesomely rated A* 200mm macro, so quality doesn't seem to be an issue with the AF macros. Naively it seems that the AF macro lenses with 1:1 are a win over the MF 1:2 macro lenses. So, ... Since the AF lenses goto 1:1 without a extension tube, is there something which you lose with a 1:1 AF macro lens compared to a traditional MF Macro lens? Besides requring a lot of extension tubes to get to 1:1 with the longer MF macro lenses? Thanks for any illumination. Bolo - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
