Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-16-2010, 04:12 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Seems we have a similar thread atleast once a month

Anyways, you'll see me suggest/defend the sigma 105mm all day long Personally, $600 is way to much for a macro lens in my opinion.
I used to think that too, but in the case of the DFA 100mm WR...

1. Fantastic metal built (similar to the FA limited and the DA limited)

2.Optical quality on par if not better than the DA 70, which cost slightly less

3. Can be use as a semi-long tele prime (i had some beautifully rendered portraits using this lens)

4. It's one of the best macros on the market! Lens Test: Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

cheaper and on par with the twice as expensive canon 100mm macro.

sounds like a steal to me.

06-16-2010, 04:19 PM   #32
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
I had the FA 100 Macro & DFA 100 Macro lenses and got rid of them for the new DFA 100 WR Macro and even a few months on, I am just so impressed by it. It is a versatile lens for everyday shooting and Pentax definitely made some improvements over the older DFA version. Definitely nicer bokeh, better build quality, nice damped manual focusing feel and WR is worth the money. There is also less highlight blooming than the earlier DFA version that I had and better contrast than the older FA version.

It works beautifully as a portrait lens and compared to the DA 70mm that I used for a recent shoot, the DFA sharpness is a lot better.
This lens was compared to the Canon macro of equivalent focal length on some Chinese site and the Pentax easily beat it silly.
Personally, the only reason to buy the Tamron or Sigma imo is the price.

Last edited by creampuff; 06-16-2010 at 04:26 PM. Reason: spelling
06-16-2010, 06:40 PM   #33
New Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2
I got lucky and found an A50mm f2.8 macro at a Goodwill. Best $12 macro lens if you can find one Someone listed one in the marketplace recently for around $200. I like the build quality and the pictures I've taken with it.

06-16-2010, 08:41 PM   #34
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485


The A50 f2.8 is a nice lens. Mine is basically free at this point after selling off the lot that came with it. We can't always count on those bargains however.

DFA100 f2.8 WR



DA35 Ltd



I know that the above 3 photos are useless as a compare. All three are quite nice in their own way. I haven't tried the 50 on the K7 with a color subject yet.

06-17-2010, 12:01 AM   #35
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Eagle_Friends Quote
I used to think that too, but in the case of the DFA 100mm WR...

1. Fantastic metal built (similar to the FA limited and the DA limited) My sigma is not lacking in the build department by any means...

2.Optical quality on par if not better than the DA 70, which cost slightly less Whats the point in comparing those two? Two completely different lenses.

3. Can be use as a semi-long tele prime (i had some beautifully rendered portraits using this lens) Can do the same with any of the modern macro's mentioned above 50mm..

4. It's one of the best macros on the market! Lens Test: Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips AFAIK, the only thing changed from the first optics wise is the aperture blades. The first was always rated as the lowest on the modem pole when compared to the sigma 105mm and tammy 90mm..... now granted they are all incredible lenses and you wont be able to tell a difference when not shooting test charts but still...

cheaper and on par with the twice as expensive canon 100mm macro.

sounds like a steal to me.
Well the canon has a lot to offer IMO. USM and IF being the most noteworthy.... the pentax has WR and new aperture blades that make circular highlights in the bokeh more pleasing when stopped down... You can choose what is important to you but personally, sure WR would be cool just to have but it will never be used and is definitely not worth the premium they are asking. The second positive aspect for the Pentax is meaningless to me :ugh:

as always, IMHO and YMMV
06-17-2010, 08:33 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
sure WR would be cool just to have but it will never be used and is definitely not worth the premium they are asking.
Hmm... Just yesterday afternoon I was out shootin' macros in the rain. It was no "light" rain either. For me, the WR already paid for itself even though I've had this lens less than 24 hours.
06-17-2010, 10:42 AM   #37
Senior Member
Ron_Man's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 220
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ubuntu_user Quote
Hmm... Just yesterday afternoon I was out shootin' macros in the rain. It was no "light" rain either. For me, the WR already paid for itself even though I've had this lens less than 24 hours.
Exactly. You just never know when it will come in handy I suppose
06-17-2010, 11:51 AM   #38
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
Care to share a shot or two?

Taking anywhere near 1:1 in the rain seems about impossible if you want any decent DOF or shutter speed....

Generally, atleast here, rain equates to little light. With macro's, where you want good infocus subjects, you need as much light as possible unless you have a flash setup......but unless im mistaken no flash setup im aware of could handle "hard" rain (Most no rain at all).

06-17-2010, 12:25 PM   #39
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Care to share a shot or two?

Taking anywhere near 1:1 in the rain seems about impossible if you want any decent DOF or shutter speed....

Generally, atleast here, rain equates to little light. With macro's, where you want good infocus subjects, you need as much light as possible unless you have a flash setup......but unless im mistaken no flash setup im aware of could handle "hard" rain (Most no rain at all).
Here you go... Just before I got soaked. No flash.





Is there some particular reason you're so hell bent against this man buying a WR Macro? Or is it just because YOU don't think it's a worthwhile purchase?

06-17-2010, 12:42 PM   #40
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,430
QuoteQuote:
Is there some particular reason you're so hell bent against this man buying a WR Macro? Or is it just because YOU don't think it's a worthwhile purchase?
He lives in So Calif. Not much rain...
06-17-2010, 12:46 PM   #41
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
Is there some particular reason you're so hell bent against this man buying a WR Macro? Or is it just because YOU don't think it's a worthwhile purchase?


Thats some pretty good light you had going there it seems! Lucky you

You consider this hell bent?

If people are going to give him reasons to get the lens, he should be able to hear another perspective without getting accused of being "hell bent" against the OP getting the lens in question. I stated in just about every post "IMO" or "YMMV" letting the reader know this is what I think. So yes, I do not think it is a lens worth its price tag from what I can see.... Am I not allowed to say this?
06-17-2010, 01:06 PM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hamilton NY
Posts: 31
The 100 WR macro looks to be fantastic and is next on my list. I've been using the 35 Ltd Macro on my K7 and now Kx and am very pleased with it. I do mostly flowers so working distance is fine for me.

06-17-2010, 01:06 PM   #43
Senior Member
Ron_Man's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 220
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Thats some pretty good light you had going there it seems! Lucky you

You consider this hell bent?

If people are going to give him reasons to get the lens, he should be able to hear another perspective without getting accused of being "hell bent" against the OP getting the lens in question. I stated in just about every post "IMO" or "YMMV" letting the reader know this is what I think. So yes, I do not think it is a lens worth its price tag from what I can see.... Am I not allowed to say this?
LOL! The price is definitely steep I can admit to that. Since I have the DA 10-17mm I will test out the DA 12-24mm that I'm receiving this week and decide if keeping both lenses is worth it. If I feel the 10-17mm is that much better than I'll probably end up getting rid of the 12-24mm to get some money back for the 100mm WR

Decisions, decisions, decisions...
06-17-2010, 01:16 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
$600 for a macro lens is absolutely ridiculous. There are tons of cheaper alternatives that do not sacrifice image quality. Say what you will but the fact is few people will ever truly need WR. It's not like non-WR lenses are hydrophobic. All it takes is a bit of common sense to use camera equipment in the rain.

Also, why is the 10-17 even being compared to the 12-24?
06-17-2010, 01:19 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Care to share a shot or two?

Taking anywhere near 1:1 in the rain seems about impossible if you want any decent DOF or shutter speed....

Generally, atleast here, rain equates to little light. With macro's, where you want good infocus subjects, you need as much light as possible unless you have a flash setup......but unless im mistaken no flash setup im aware of could handle "hard" rain (Most no rain at all).
Sure! My shutter speed was 1/500 on this one (that's fast IMHO):
Attached Images
 
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, 50mm, da, fa, k-mount, lens, lenses, macro, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro and Sigma 180mm F/3.5 EX DG IF APO Macro Lens LenWick Sold Items 9 06-16-2010 11:09 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma DL Macro Super 70-300mm f/4-5.6 1:2 Macro Lens, Worldwide Ship! wallyb Sold Items 10 12-16-2009 10:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 90mm F2.5 AT-X Macro Lens with 1:1 Extender. A Legendary Macro Lens. Bo frank Sold Items 12 05-29-2009 05:57 PM
50mm macro lens vs 100mm macro lens. What is your experience? raider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-28-2007 06:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top