I am the owner of a new 67II and a 135 macro; I did not realize how limited the close-up capabilities of this lens are. I am very experienced in using bellows, extension tubes, etc on 35mm.

I am interested in your experience in getting a little closer with my new 135 macro--at least to 0.5 or a little greater magnification. Are the Pentax tubes worth the cost? How about third party close-up lenses?

Thanks in advance.

-- Mike Evans (muevans@cts.com), April 03, 2001

Answers

You might consider the Helicoid ext tube on the 135. It will give variable magnification from .5x to .7x. The Helicoid also works well on the 105, 200 and 150mm. The 135 could really use an f/64 stop. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), April 06, 2001.

Mike,

I've used both the Pentax extension tubes and the macro bellows with my old 1981 Pentax 6x7. You can get good results, but you're not going to get much depth-of-field. (With both, you should use stopped down metering.) If you're going to get either, I would suggest the extension tubes - you can use them in the field. (But the cost is damnable. Look for used sets on www.keh.com.)

For example, I have a stunning close-up of a damselfly, with a turqoise-colored head, but you can see the grass stalk on which it was perched slowly dissolving into the unfocussed background. Depth-of-field was probably 1/4 of an inch.

I'm not familiar with any third party close-up lenses for this camera.

Hope this helps, feel free to email further questions...

--Bill Hahn

-- Bill Hahn (bhahn@world.std.com), April 06, 2001.

Mike,

I have the #2 and #3 auto extension tubes and the helicoid extension tube for my 135mm lens. With all three, I get true macro...i.e. 1:1. As someone else mentioned, d.o.f. really gets to be a problem, quite a bit worse than you're used to with your 35mm gear. Also, the light fall-off can make focusing a challenge. Having said that, I wouldn't give up on your 135mm lens just yet; mine's incredibly sharp, all the way down to f/32. For landscapes or environmental portraits, however, you'll find that its out-of-focus behaviour (bokeh?) is pretty ugly. It's pretty much a specialty lens.

-- Scott Whitford (swhitford@msn.com), April 08, 2001.

I realise this reply is late, but I've only just noticed this thread and as I seem to be one of the few who prefers to use a close-up lens rather than tubes with the 135, I thought I'd comment.

I had the three tube set but after years of using auto-metering tubes in 35mm I couldn't stand having to use stop-down metering with the 67 tubes.

I liked the lens, though, and seeking closer focus I tried using a macro adapter from an Olympus IS series camera - Olympus IS/L B-macro HQ converter F=40cm. It appears to be a two element achromat and works really well, it's light and takes up very little room. Also, using a close-up lens means no light loss through extra extension.

The adapter has a 55mm filter thread, so a 67-55 step-down ring is needed. There's little or no vignetting, except for a faint hint of corner darkening at the closest focus. The magnification range is 0.44 to 0.88.

-- Geoff Bryant (geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz), August 10, 2001.

How about slapping on a 5T and/or 6T Nikon closeup lens (62mm filter size so would need step down ring). I've use these on my 35mm and they work great.

-- norman roberts (ntrphotog@aol.com), December 19, 2001.