Originally posted by garethwebber
Do you notice a huge difference moving from your Sigma 70/2.8(macro) to a FA100/2.8(macro)? I am wondering if the pentax 100 WR might provide enough of a jump over my sigma 70 to be worth having, or if I really need 150 to justify two lenses.
Back to the drawing board anyway.
I considered that thought and to tell you frankly, it is really difficult to decide. sooner or later, something's gotta give. I wish I am still capable of keeping these lenses as much as possible. but as of the moment, budget seems not be on my side.
as far as my opinion is concerned, eventhough those lenses are both macros, their individual use is primarily focused or influenced by their focal length and rendering necessities. the 70 works as a short telephoto portrait lens with outstanding resolution (sharpness priority and wide fov) , the 100 works as a long telephoto portrait and candid (bokeh and colour), the 90 works primarily as my main macro and serves as a back-up portrait for it's unique rendering. and my FA135, although not really a macro, is a great street candid lens due to it's tremendous AF speed.
the reasons on why I'm considering the 150 are mainly in relation to focal length flexibility for macro subjects which higher resolution is a necessity, and be able to deliver great bokeh not only for macro but for outdoor portraits as well. I don't think it would be able to replace the FA135 especially with regards to AF speed though where AF speed is of great convenience for candid/sports and ambush photos.
I just have to make up my mind on what lenses that aren't really that used much at all or which focal length I can live without. it's not easy.