[Ubuntu_user]

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?

Oh yeah, you're allowed. This is a free country, isn't it? Or... maybe not.
Mhm, as long as you keep those IMOs tagged on there, everything is just fine! :P

[Rense]

If you only use it for macro: go cheap, buy a MF lens (Vivitar or Panagor 90 or 55mm). Some thoughts here.

[Ron_Man]

$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?

I probably would use it more than just for macro since 100mm is a good addition to my FL, only currently covered by my 18-250mm.

Well, the 10-17mm was my "fun" UWA and didn't care too much for the 12-24mm.. but I figured to go ahead and get the 12-24mm on a good deal (is $500 a good price for a new one? I think so).

I got the 12-24mm thinking it may be useful for when I need a "real" UWA shot without the severe distortion. Depending on my satisfaction, I just may end up with the two.

Ideally, I wanted to just keep it down to one but since I'm about to get carried away with LBA I just might go crazy and collect as many lenses as I financially can... *shrugs*

[SpecialK]

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...

The 10-17 and 12-24 are completely different. If you want to give one up that's OK, but they will not fulfill each others niche.

I made this side-by-side some time ago. I did not shoot the fisheye at 10mm for it though I wish I had for completeness...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/Tests/10-17vs12-24.jpg

[audiobomber]

The 10-17 and 12-24 are completely different. If you want to give one up that's OK, but they will not fulfill each others niche.

I made this side-by-side some time ago. I did not shoot the fisheye at 10mm for it though I wish I had for completeness...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/Tests/10-17vs12-24.jpg

These are defished, right? In your photos it looks like 16mm on the fisheye has a similar width to to 12mm on the rectilinear lens, but the specs from Pentax say 100 degrees for both the 10-17 at 17 mm and the 12-24 at 12 mm.

[audiobomber]

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...

I don't believe I've seen a test where the Sigma and Pentax macros were compared. The D FA 100 is weaker at 2.8 than the Tamron in pure MTF resolution and similar at smaller apertures, as measured by Photozone. My experience has been that a pure MTF test does not equate that well with perceived sharpness, because it doesn't account for contrast. The D FA 100 has superb contrast, which makes it look a lot sharper than the numbers show. In pure MTF terms, the FA 50mm 1.4 looks as sharp as the DA*55 at wide apertures, but anyone who owns both says the 55 is a lot sharper. The DA 55-300 got a ho-hum review at Photozone compared to the Tamron 70-300mm, even though most who've owned both say the Pentax is sharper.

The SQF measurements that PopPhoto uses do consider contrast, and Pentax lenses have scored much better results in their tests than they do at Photozone. From personal experience, my D FA 100 looks sharper to me than my other primes (FA 35, FA 50 1.4, DA 40mm), even though the Photozone MTF results say no way.

The other reason I like the D FA 100 is its colour rendition. It has similar hue to my other Pentax lenses. Sigmas and Tamrons have a different hue. Many people, including me, see a yellow caste to Sigma lenses. Tamrons have a bit of a brownish tinge. Of course colour can be anything you want in a digital photo, but it's very satisfying to love the look of your images without any adjusting, and I love the look of images from my Pentax lenses. For some people, including a number of people who've said so in this thread, paying a premium for a Pentax lens is worthwhile. For others, as you said, mileage varies.

[Eagle_Friends]

$600 for just a macro lens is definitely not worth the price, but the DFA 100 WR is much more than that. It works beautifully as a long portrait lens between the usual 85mm and 135mm range. With a couple steps back, it is practically a FA 77mm, it even has a similar built and looks like a bigger brother next to the 77. I've tried the Tamron and the Sigma; the built just can't compare in my opinion. The Sigma is heavier, but I would choose the metal finish and overall feel of the Pentax any day. The round blade is also a plus especially for the occasional bokeh-heavy shots. The lens is compact enough for me to bring to trips without wasting valuable space. My buddy has an older Canon 100mm macro and that thing was huge, and it got much bigger with the hood on.

My only complain is the whinny auto-focus, which occurs sometimes when I try to go for the 1:1 macro shots. Shots like that require manual focus 90% of the time anyhow so its expected.

---

Last edited by Eagle_Friends; 06-17-2010 at 04:44 PM.

[MoiVous]

An observation if you wish to get into serious macro like Yeatzee & Rense and start adding extension tubes/bellows/reversing rings etc - you need an aperture ring on your lens.

The legacy glass has that, as does the earlier DFA 100 macro, Tamron 90, the Sigma 105.

There are also the Vivitar 105 and a few other vintage macro lenses - though some have a problem with purple reflections onto the sensor (the early Tamron 90 had that).

On my Tammy 90 I use that aperture ring with my old Pentax K extension tubes. And my Tammy 90 is as sharp as any of them from what I've seen.

From what I can gather from images and reviews of the new DFA 100 WR (and I don't own one - so correct me if I'm wrong), there is no aperture ring. So when you want to go beyond 1:1 with accessories that don't transmit aperture info you have a problem

IMHO that's a limitation I won't live with.

The other thing to consider is that many people have expressed the opinion on this forum and elsewhere that there are no bad macro lenses in production - and I would suggest that is the most useful statement to take home.

In the end it comes down to what you are going to shoot, what you are prepared to pay and how much you really want to stick to Pentax glass only.

Good luck with your deliberations!

Cheers

[Ira]

$600 for just a macro lens is definitely not worth the price, but the DFA 100 WR is much more than that. It works beautifully as a long portrait lens between the usual 85mm and 135mm range. With a couple steps back, it is practically a FA 77mm, it even has a similar built and looks like a bigger brother next to the 77. I've tried the Tamron and the Sigma; the built just can't compare in my opinion. The Sigma is heavier, but I would choose the metal finish and overall feel of the Pentax any day. The round blade is also a plus especially for the occasional bokeh-heavy shots. The lens is compact enough for me to bring to trips without wasting valuable space. My buddy has an older Canon 100mm macro and that thing was huge, and it got even bigger with the hood on.

My only complain is the whinny auto-focus, which occurs sometimes when I try to go for the 1:1 macro shots. Shots like that require manual focus 90% of the time anyhow so its expected.

You're getting into the "mine is better than yours" territory, which isn't particularly helpful to anyone.

And $600 for a quality macro is certainly worth the price, if you do a lot of macro. and all of today's macro lenses do double duty.

I'm also amazed that your friend's 100mm Macro got bigger with the lens hood on, because as we all know, adding a lens hood makes the lens smaller.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here.

[Eagle_Friends]

You're getting into the "mine is better than yours" territory, which isn't particularly helpful to anyone.

And $600 for a quality macro is certainly worth the price, if you do a lot of macro. and all of today's macro lenses do double duty.

I'm also amazed that your friend's 100mm Macro got bigger with the lens hood on, because as we all know, adding a lens hood makes the lens smaller.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here.

fixed'

But the lens was very large, I would not lug something like that around for everyday occasions, but I would for the DFA.

I wasn't trying to state any "mine is better than yours" argument. It is just how I felt when I tried all three lenses; the quality and feel of the Pentax just felt better so I prefer it more? I'm amazed that you take such offensive on my post.

[yeatzee]

An observation if you wish to get into serious macro like Yeatzee & Rense and start adding extension tubes/bellows/reversing rings etc - you need an aperture ring on your lens.

The legacy glass has that, as does the earlier DFA 100 macro, Tamron 90, the Sigma 105.

Great point! Can't believe I forgot about that

[Ira]

fixed'

But the lens was very large, I would not lug something like that around for everyday occasions, but I would for the DFA.

I wasn't trying to state any "mine is better than yours" argument. It is just how I felt when I tried all three lenses; the quality and feel of the Pentax just felt better so I prefer it more? I'm amazed that you take such offensive on my post.

I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in your point of view.

The "hood makes the lens larger" is the comment that pushed me over the edge

[Eagle_Friends]

I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in your point of view.

The "hood makes the lens larger" is the comment that pushed me over the edge

guess what they say about the inter-web is right after-all, that everyone is a perfectionist and a grammar expert and could not tolerate any typos or mistakes and view it as a crime against society.

Take a chill pill dude, just a mis-wording that I have fixed.

oh and what inconsistency?

[hangu]

$600 for just a macro lens is definitely not worth the price, but the DFA 100 WR is much more than that. It works beautifully as a long portrait lens between the usual 85mm and 135mm range. With a couple steps back, it is practically a FA 77mm, it even has a similar built and looks like a bigger brother next to the 77. I've tried the Tamron and the Sigma; the built just can't compare in my opinion. The Sigma is heavier, but I would choose the metal finish and overall feel of the Pentax any day. The round blade is also a plus especially for the occasional bokeh-heavy shots. The lens is compact enough for me to bring to trips without wasting valuable space. My buddy has an older Canon 100mm macro and that thing was huge, and it got even bigger with the hood on.

Any 1:1 macro lens can double as a decent to great portrait lens. The Vivitar S1 and Lester A Dine take amazing portraits.

The rounded aperture blades don't actually mean it has superior background blur. It's not like my Bokina has ugly octagonal bokeh just because it has 8 straight blades.

With a couple steps back, it is practically a FA 77mm

So my all metal Voightlander 40mm is also FA 77 if I take a few steps forward?

[hangu]

guess what they say about the inter-web is right after-all, that everyone is a perfectionist and a grammar expert and could not tolerate any typos or mistakes and view it as a crime against society.

Take a chill pill dude, just a mis-wording that I have fixed.

oh and what inconsistency?

Right, we're all grammar Nazis because we pointed out a mistake in your logic. Really?