"IMHO": Getting More With Macro

I thank the author of this article for writing it. I recently saw, and purchased a Minolta bellows set, along with a MD-MA adapter ring, and included a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 lens. Need to stand back four [bad word filtered] ' feet from the subject, but it does work.

I'm going to be looking to replace the 200mm with a 35 or 50mm Minolta MD lens. Also, I'm looking at getting a set of tube rings, since I can't get my KM 7D to attach to the bellows. There's a spot on the camera that interferes and gets in the way. I think if I put one ring in there, I should be able to move the camera back far enough to get it on. My A58 doesn't have any problems getting on, though. But, I don't have the ADP-MAA flash adapter yet, so I can't program my 3600HS for off camera use with the A58.

I think this will be fun, although I was told I've opened a Pandora's box. We'll see.

Gary

Adding a link with more useful information.

Macro Link

THe 50mm reversed direct onto the camera should give about 1:1, a 28mm gives about 2:1 the 18-70 kit lens at 18mm gives about 4.5:1, but at only a few mm working distance

This page is a good reference even though it is aimed at Nikon usersclick here

dilettante wrote: brian33 wrote: My question is: are there any advantages to a 50mm macro lens over a 100mm macro lens other than smaller size and lower price? (Though I'm not sure the 300 euros is such a good deal even though it was in perfect condition.) 50mm is considered a more 'normal' field of view, but the disadvantage is that working distance gets very small, i.e. for a given level of magnification, you'll need to be a lot closer to your subject with a 50mm lens than with 100mm. That can mean it's hard to light your subject, and if it's a live subject, you may end up scaring it off. I'd say only consider 50mm macro if you want to take studio shots of static subjects.

Thanks! The other thing is I have a minolta 50mm 1.7 which I don't like because I have a hard time shooting around the chromatic abberation and it's not a terribly sharp lens either so replacing it with the Sony macro would give me a respectable 2.8 and much sharper. But what you're telling me about the advantages of 100mm (or 135 I suppose) make a 100mm macro sound much more appealing and versatile for the macro aspect.

Very interesting topic and which has gotten my little gears spinning and thinking about macro photography. So I went to a camera store yesterday and I saw a used Sony 50mm macro lens for 300 euros.

My question is: are there any advantages to a 50mm macro lens over a 100mm macro lens other than smaller size and lower price? (Though I'm not sure the 300 euros is such a good deal even though it was in perfect condition.)

Excellent resource, thank you.

Topazlizz, albnok is correct, I just tried a 135 MD reversed on my bellows setup which I have not yet been successful with yet and the distance with the 135 is a few feet where the others are where you are on top of the subject. A guy I have on my flickr contacts list is unreal with his stuff, he actually has a photo of his setup one or two pages in:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7539598@N04/
By the way topazlizz, how's that 50mm doing I sold awhile back?
Ken