[sewebster]

Any comments on who wins?

[Ash]

Different focal lengths, gonna be hard getting even ground to compare them.
Lens Test: Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f28-ex-apo-dg-hsm-macro-sigma

Plus... they'll be compared in two different systems.
Amidst speculations, no sign of the 150 macro for K-mount yet...

[sewebster]

Hmm, the home page ( The Largest Pentax Camera & Photography Forum and Review Site - PentaxForums.com Home ) says k-mount was announced today?

[Eagle_Friends]

The 100mm WR Macro,

NO CONTEST!!!

I even think that's better than the Sigma 180mm Macro, so it should easily take out the 150mm Macro

[v5planet]

You know, ever since that 2011 LBA/CBA thread popped up on this forum, I've realized how many peoples' lust list the DFA 100 WR shows up on. And here I thought I was a little off for wanting it.

[Ash]

Sorry for not being up with the news sewebster!
Only one way to find out which is better - a real world shootout!
Who's going to pick the Sigma 150 up to give it a go?

[yeatzee]

I have no doubt that the sigma will be better than the pentax......

I've been wanting this lens for a LONG time, but hell no at the proposed prices im seeing.....

[Pentaxor]

The 100mm WR Macro,

NO CONTEST!!!

I even think that's better than the Sigma 180mm Macro, so it should easily take out the 150mm Macro

is it because it's a Sigma? each of Sigma's macros are not created equally, and as far as ranking them goes, the Sigma 150 is the best and sharpest that came out from Sigma, it's even regarded as better than the highly praised Tamron 180mm. you can just imagine now how great this lens is. I have the Sigma 70 which is a heck of a sharp macro, and yet the 150mm is better than it. as far as the 180mm is concerned, this is exactly the reason why I never considered getting the 180. eventhough it has a more longer reach, it is not as good as it's shorter sibling.

as far as which lens is better between the 100 WR and Sigma 150, the 100 WR is better only because it's available.

[Freak]

The $1699 RRP on the Sigma 150, with it's WR and FLD, HSM and OS will mean My D-FA 100mm WR cost me about a third of that.

It seems all the new Sigma's are expensive, but all are FF compatible as well. (Which the D-FA is as well)

I'm also looking at adding the 120-300 f/2.8. )))) (So glad they announced all in K-mount)

[Eagle_Friends]

is it because it's a Sigma? each of Sigma's macros are not created equally, and as far as ranking them goes, the Sigma 150 is the best and sharpest that came out from Sigma, it's even regarded as better than the highly praised Tamron 180mm. you can just imagine now how great this lens is. I have the Sigma 70 which is a heck of a sharp macro, and yet the 150mm is better than it. as far as the 180mm is concerned, this is exactly the reason why I never considered getting the 180. eventhough it has a more longer reach, it is not as good as it's shorter sibling.

as far as which lens is better between the 100 WR and Sigma 150, the 100 WR is better only because it's available.

no, i've owned the 100mm Macro WR, and I loved it. That was the one lens I regret selling more than any other, wished my financial situation was better than...

You have to admit though, the Pentax definitely looks better than the Sigma.

[Pentaxor]

The $1699 RRP on the Sigma 150, with it's WR and FLD, HSM and OS will mean My D-FA 100mm WR cost me about a third of that.

It seems all the new Sigma's are expensive, but all are FF compatible as well. (Which the D-FA is as well)

I'm also looking at adding the 120-300 f/2.8. )))) (So glad they announced all in K-mount)

not only that, you forgot the additional 50mm reach which makes sense.

[azimuthal]

I have the non-os 150 sigma in nikon mount and I love it. If they release it in pentax mount I highly recommend it. I'm not sure if I'll replace mine with the OS one or not.

btw sigma 50, 70, 105 150 180 are all excellent lenses. sigma is very good at making macro lenses.

[Pentaxor]

MSRP for the Sigma 85/1.4 is at $1,400 but it's market price is around $800-$900. I would assume that the Sigma 150 macro's price would be around $1,000-$1,200 considering the MSRP is $1,600. also the price of an old used 180mm macro is around $800-$900.

the $1,600 market price IMO is just too much and I don't believe Sigma nor people in general would buy it at such price considering it's NON-OS predecessor only cost about a 1/3. if that were the case, I would just rather buy a used NON-OS 150mm for $500-$600 and a compatible mount dlsr or EVIL camera for $400-$500. for $,1000 bucks, I got a fabulous lens and a 2nd or 3rd Body to use. makes a lot of sense rather than have to shell out $1,600.

[lesmore49]

Latest issue of Popular Photography rates the Pentax 100mm F 2.8 Macro very highly. My vote is for the Pentax over the Sigma.

[Jewelltrail]

The Sigma 150 2.8 Macro is an exceptional lens, even better than the Sigma 180mm f 3.5. I do not know many people, outside of Pentax Forums, who would rate the D-Fa 100 macro over the Sigma--not sober.

Even comparing it in its own focal range, to say, the Tamron 90mm, the Pentax D-fa 100 Macro loses. For example, read this conclusion from the good folks over @ Photozone:

Verdict
"The Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP is an excellent lens without significant flaws and it is at least as good if not even slightly better than its more expensive native Pentax counterpart. The resolution figures are impressively high, vignetting is marginal and distortions are non-existent. There're hints of lateral and longitudinal CAs but that's nothing out of the ordinary here. The bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is very smooth so the lens is very well suited for shallow depth-of-field situations. The build quality is decent. Taking the moderate pricing into account the Tamron represents an excellent deal."