[Jasvox]

I have a hand full of Pentax primes and a couple of Tamron zooms. What difference does it make which brand if glass I choose to use with my Pentax bodies if the results are pleasing? Limiting yourself to the brand of glass to "match" the brand of body is simply ridiculous.

Jason

[Rondec]

I would not be adverse to getting a third party lens if I saw a reason, but that would reason would likely be that there wasn't something equivalent available from Pentax. The biggest lack right now is in longer lenses and in wide lenses faster than f2.8. At the same time, the biggest reason in my book to buy Pentax bodies is the ability to use the limited primes.

[pcarfan]

Shang!

I totally understand your feelings. I only tried the Tamron 28-75 among the lenses you mentioned, which is a superb lens, but at the end I decided to keep the FA* 28-70 costing almost 4 times more and sold the Tamron. I just love shooting with Pentax glass and not entirely just for the IQ (which also is sliglty better in this situation).

I also agree that one of the major perks of Pentax ownsership is their glass. It's not only their peerless limited series (both DA and FA), which gives unparalleled size, speed, IQ, price advantgae that no other system can privide. But, I used the first EVER SLR lens released by a Japanes SLR company (Asahi) on the most modern Pentax DSLR - The Asahi-Koagku 50/3.5 the lens that came with the first Japanese SLR to be ever made can meter, have SR and be used very well on the K-7, HOW COOL IS THAT...now, every lens in between can be used as well - what other system can match this!

Now, assume none of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph is true, and all Pentax has in it's lens collection is just ONE of the FA limiteds - then that is reason enough for me to be a Pentaxian - Yeah! they are that GOOD

But, I would not go far enough to say that all you should have are Pentax lenses -Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica and some others have strong offerings that are in some cases even better than any Pentax lens. But, there are some consumer third party lenses that are worth owning as well. I own the Sigma 100-300 F4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 macro. I like them both, but I am severly tempted to replace them with Pentax equivalents ...there are some others as well (Tamron 28-75 is one of them for sure). But, I would never call any of them better than Pentax counterparts (if there is one).

P.S: Can you tell I am a die hard pentax fanboy

[Pentaxor]

there are 3rd-party lenses that have impressed me a lot.

in my collection, the best that I have seen comes from the Vivitar S1 90/2.5. and I have not seen any Pentax equivalent or close to that focal length to be as good or better than it. if I were to rank the lenses at that focal length, it will be the ff:

1. Vivitar/Tokina 90/2.5
2. Tamron BBAR 90/2.5 macro
3. Vivitar/Kiron/Lester Dine 105/2.8
4. Pentax WR 100/2.8
5. Tamron 90/2.8
6. Pentax FA 100/2.8
7. DFA 100 and 8. Sigma 105 are tied

[Arpe]

If you aren't going to shoot Pentax glass, you've pretty much eliminated any reason to use their cameras.

I'll say, because combining that weather-sealed body with Pentax's awesome, fast-focussing 70-200/f2.8 along with it's superb 1.4x teleconverter... oh, hang on, they don't make those. Well how about a 100-300, geez even f4 would do.... nope, sorry. 400 or 300/2.8? Yeah right.

Means I have to use 3rd party glass, then I have no reason to keep weather-sealed, lightweight, compact K-7 with fantastic ergs. Damn! Looks like I have to sell up!

[CFWhitman]

I like using my manual focus lenses, and Pentax does manual focus better than Canon and Nikon, especially if you don't want to spend a lot of money. Pentax also gives shake reduction to old manual focus lenses, and opens up the opportunity to use a lot of old glass without going to a lot of expense or trouble.

Would I like to get some good Pentax glass? Sure, but that's not the primary reason I decided to use a Pentax camera. I'm actually a bit more interested in old Pentax glass than new, but there are definitely some new Pentax lenses that I would like to have. At the moment I have no Pentax lenses (unless you count a teleconverter), but I'm sure that will change in the future.

[Entropy]

Cheap 70-300mm lenses - Unless you buy the Pentax 55-300 with a K-x, it's barely worth the incredible price premium (close to 2x) it carries over the Tamron 70-300. (It's dirt cheap when purchased with the K-x.)

Travel lenses - Pentax's "travel lens" entry was just a rebadged Tamron 18-250. It's discontinued now. Tamron doesn't seem to be offering it in Pentax mount either anymore. Sigma, however, has the new(ish) 18-250 OS HSM, which I LOVE.

Sigma 17-70 is a great lens too.

Pentax doesn't have anything that compares to the well regarded "Bigma" 50-500 zoom.

Pentax doesn't offer a 70-200/2.8 lens. Tamron does, and Sigma did/will (they are in a bit of a gap between the non-OS and OS version.)

[CGottfried]

1. Vivitar/Tokina 90/2.5
2. Tamron BBAR 90/2.5 macro
3. Vivitar/Kiron/Lester Dine 105/2.8
4. Pentax WR 100/2.8
5. Tamron 90/2.8
6. Pentax FA 100/2.8
7. DFA 100 and 8. Sigma 105 are tied

Interesting list. I had the Kiron 105mm for a while, but I preferred the Panagor 90mm (which is somewhere around here). Later I added a Voigtlander 125mm to my macro collection.

My first preference would be Pentax, but there are some fine 3d party lenses out there.

[Pentaxor]

Interesting list. I had the Kiron 105mm for a while, but I preferred the Panagor 90mm (which is somewhere around here). Later I added a Voigtlander 125mm to my macro collection.

My first preference would be Pentax, but there are some fine 3d party lenses out there.

if we are going to include other focal lengths, the Pentax 200* macro would probably be at the top, followed by the Vivitar/Tokina 90/2.5. there is something about the images those two lenses produce that I like very much. too bad the price premium for the 200* macro is too uninviting. I had unknowingly missed the chance to get one for $300 in a good condition due to topsy-turvy posting and lack of vigilance.

[Ira]

As a 90 Macro Tamron owner who hardly uses it for reasons nothing to do with the quality lens (I don't give a s*it about macro), can someone please explain this little factoid to me:

Where on this website are people posting their macro shots with their supposedly superior Pentax 100 WR?

Not looking to start trouble, but the Tamron club is dozens of pages deep, many with examples of the 90 Macro, but what seems to be invisible is this magical Pentax 100 that no one ever seems to post photos of.

Am I looking in the wrong place? Am I missing something? Or have I touched on a point that doesn't make any sense?

Exactly where can one find examples of this lens?

[CGottfried]

Originally posted by Pentaxor
if we are going to include other focal lengths, the Pentax 200* macro would . . .
premium for the 200* macro is too uninviting. I had unknowingly missed the chance to get one for $300 in a good condition due to topsy-turvy posting and lack of vigilance.

$300!? Wow! . . . that would have been a steal. In my macro lens frenzy (some years ago), I bought the 200* via ebay but it cost $1K. But I tell myself it was a worthwhile investment.

[Forgive me for my ignorance through newness here, but is there a simple way to quote the person of an earlier post? Thanks!]

[pcarfan]

$300!? Wow! . . . that would have been a steal. In my macro lens frenzy (some years ago), I bought the 200* via ebay but it cost $1K. But I tell myself it was a worthwhile investment.

[Forgive me for my ignorance through newness here, but is there a simple way to quote the person of an earlier post? Thanks!]

Did you say $1k and you hope it's a worthwhile investment? Lets add that $300 to your 1k, and I'll take the lens off your hands for $1.3k and I know it will be a worthwhile investment for me, what do you say?

[Pentaxor]

$300!? Wow! . . . that would have been a steal. In my macro lens frenzy (some years ago), I bought the 200* via ebay but it cost $1K. But I tell myself it was a worthwhile investment.

[Forgive me for my ignorance through newness here, but is there a simple way to quote the person of an earlier post? Thanks!]

yeah, and it was there for a really long time, about 2 months or so. I thought it was an ordinary 200/4 and it was priced the same as that of a normal 200/4 telephoto so I skipped on it. when I looked at the listing again and looked at the picture closely and saw the green band on it with a * on the engraving, it was already too late. someone got it. there was only me too blame. but anyway, I'm still ok with it. I guess one of the main reason that I didn't saw it is because it wasn't really the lens that I'm dying to have inspite of it's great reputation nor looking for that type of lens in the first place. although I could had sold it for 5 times it's worth. but anyways, I'm still looking for a good deal on an FA* 85/1.4 for $700. price that might be able to sway me away from the Sigma 85.

regarding the multiquote feature, just click the multiquote button at the lower right portion of the posted message and it should show like this "+multiquote", + = multiple quotes, - = single quote.

[Rondec]

As a 90 Macro Tamron owner who hardly uses it for reasons nothing to do with the quality lens (I don't give a s*it about macro), can someone please explain this little factoid to me:

Where on this website are people posting their macro shots with their supposedly superior Pentax 100 WR?

Not looking to start trouble, but the Tamron club is dozens of pages deep, many with examples of the 90 Macro, but what seems to be invisible is this magical Pentax 100 that no one ever seems to post photos of.

Am I looking in the wrong place? Am I missing something? Or have I touched on a point that doesn't make any sense?

Exactly where can one find examples of this lens?

Most of the photos I have seen with this lens have been in Frank's thread here. It is a little tough, because the DFA 100mm WR has only been out since January and it has been priced pretty high for most of that time. Truthfully, the biggest difference between it and the older 100mm macros from Pentax seems to be that the bokeh is better on the newer lens. Still, I think all of these macro lenses are amazingly sharp and you probably can't go wrong with them.

Just wait till J Sherman gets his hands on one and suddenly you'll see everyone with one!

[Pentaxor]

As a 90 Macro Tamron owner who hardly uses it for reasons nothing to do with the quality lens (I don't give a s*it about macro), can someone please explain this little factoid to me:

Where on this website are people posting their macro shots with their supposedly superior Pentax 100 WR?

Not looking to start trouble, but the Tamron club is dozens of pages deep, many with examples of the 90 Macro, but what seems to be invisible is this magical Pentax 100 that no one ever seems to post photos of.

Am I looking in the wrong place? Am I missing something? Or have I touched on a point that doesn't make any sense?

Exactly where can one find examples of this lens?

it is probably because it is virtually a new lens and not too many people post that much nowadays, especially macros. I think it's the same with some macro lenses as well.

but anyway, honestly speaking, there isn't really much of a significant difference in IQ between the last 3 Pentax 100mm AF lenses. the difference between the old FA and the DFA is slight contrast for the latter although much punchier color and slightly better bokeh for the FA. the WR 100 somehow is lil bit of both with a much ideal OOF circles at smaller apertures.

if I were to say it, the obvious difference between the 3 lenses are their build construction. this is the primary reason why I haven't considered not getting the WR but choose to keep my FA100 since I don't use WR that much significantly at such situations.