Bob,
You can get an entire setup going for far less than that. For instance, a set of camera specific extension tubes for your camera, a good enlarger lens, and a modified lens cap (to mount the enlarger lens) and you're up and running. I consider$150 too much for a 50mm macro lens, regardless of brand. As a side note, I have been shooting scientific material for publications for decades, and so I'm more than familiar with the cost of equipment.
That lens came on my FT-1 when I got it, 100$ for the whole setup.
Which is a bit nuts, considering it's probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen.
I'd say it's definitely worth that much, even if Konica gear isn't that sought after anymore, think about how much you'd have to pay for a lens of comparable quality from a different kit?
I beg to differ. If the lens is a true 1:1 Kino Precision lens, it's an excellent lens. Kiron (Kino's private brand) lenses were also marketed under Vivitar labels. They were used also as Lester Dine lenses (of the dental photography specialty) in the 105mm focal length.
In 50mm, a true macro lens is highly versatile, from slow and steady macro work to landscapes and portraits. If anything, the flat focus plane can be used with considerable precision. If you are taking a picture of a pit viper, I'd suggest the longer focal length, but for much work, 50mm is fine. I've found that I use it more that the 105mm simply because it's easier (snaller, lighter) to have on the camera.
__________________
Jeff Polaski
"A full-time job seriously interferes with photography."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
A 50mm lens which has its own focusing helicoid and which goes from 1:1 or 1:2 to infinity is more correctly referred to as a purpose built macro lens. A true macro lens is one which has no helicoid, which is optimized for a limited range of magnification and which has an RMS thread mount. The Zeiss Luminars and Leitz Photars and Macro Summars are the best known of this type. In some cases the shorter lenses were in RMS mount while the longer ones were in Leica 39mm mount. This is true of the Macro Nikkors, not to be confused with the oddly named Micro Nikkors.
A 50mm lens which has its own focusing helicoid and which goes from 1:1 or 1:2 to infinity is more correctly referred to as a purpose built macro lens. A true macro lens is one which has no helicoid, which is optimized for a limited range of magnification and which has an RMS thread mount. The Zeiss Luminars and Leitz Photars and Macro Summars are the best known of this type. In some cases the shorter lenses were in RMS mount while the longer ones were in Leica 39mm mount. This is true of the Macro Nikkors, not to be confused with the oddly named Micro Nikkors.
Canon MP-E 65/2.8, anyone?
There's another artificial but somewhat useful and widely adopted dichotomy: photography at magnifications <= 1:1 is closeup photography, at magnifications > 1:1 is photomacrography. If you buy this, lenses for use above 1:1 are macro lenses, regardless of mounting hardware.
All lenses are optimized for relatively limited ranges of magnifications. Some types, usually but not always fairly symmetrical, hold their optimizations well, if not perfectly, at all distances.
Funny, the handful of 100/6.3 Luminars I've used are not in M39x26tpi and neither is my 100/6.3 Neupolar, a somewhat better lens.
Moral of this post? If you're going to lay down the law, be right.
How about a Vivitar macro-focusing teleconverter. A seven element unit built by Kiron. I have an article by Herb Keppler in Modern Photography in which he compares a Nikon 105mm f4 micro against a Nikon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 lenses. His findings was that the f1.8 + teleconverter was the equal of the micro-Nikkor whilst the f1.4 wasn't far behind. Also a good 2x teleconverter. Uses a helicoid to move the 50mm lens away from the teleconverter section and goes from 1:10 to 1:1. I use mine with a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 Close Focusing lens for photographing butterdlies. They are cheap on ebay and would enable you try macro without spending a lot. There is also a Panagor version, also by Kiron, which moves elements inside the teleconverter to get to 1:1. Though it can't be used as a teleconverter.
Lenses which are classicly referred to as "true macro" do not have their own focusing mounts even if they are used for magnifications of 1:1 or higher. The 65/2.8 MP-E is a very interesting design. If I has an EOS mount camera I would get one. The test report I read on this lens showed that it was even sharper at 5:1 than at 1:1. There are many beautiful photos of plants and insects in the gallery section of photo.net which were shot with this lens. While it is true that lenses are typically optimized for a certain magnification it is not necessary to follow this advice in every case. With my Minolta Auto Bellows III outfit I find it easier to use the 25mm f/2.5 past the recommended magnification level than to use the 12.5 f/2. If I had to photograph an average size postage stamp at 1:1 I have many choices. I could use a 50 or 55 macro lens with a 1:1 tube (if needed), a 90 or 100mm lens, the 100/4 Bellows Rokkor-X, a 120/5.6 Macro Nikkor etc. All would give me good results because I am in a situation where I can control the lighting and where the subject is flat. If I need more working distance or of my subject is not flat then I might have to use something different. Robint mentions several items which I have and sometimes use. These include the Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter, the Panagor Auto Macro Converter and the Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing lens. The Vivitar 135 goes to 1:2 by itself and is very handy when you can't get as close to a subject as you would like.
Some macro lenses like the 55/3.5 non-compensating Micro Nikkors are said to be optimized for 1:10 magnification. I find that they still work well all the way out to infinity. Two of my shorter macro lenses, the 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor and the 50/3.5 Zuiko have floating element designs and are very good over a wide range of magnifications. Just how far out of its optimized range a lens can be pushed is something you have to experiment with to find out. I don't think it would be practical to try to use my 12.5mm or 25mm Minolta micro lenses at infinity. I also enjoy using a variety of enlarging lenses, front forward and reversed, on bellows and extension tubes. Close-up and macro photography can be a lot of fun if you have the patience for it and if you like to experiment.
kino lenses 
Linear Mode
