[cali92rs]

For macros, the quick shift can really be handy, more so than a focus limiter.

I don't find that to be the case. Quick shift doesn't help much when it is hunting and can't lock focus.

As for image quality...c'mon they are both modern macros, you really have to be into measurebating to see a difference between the two.

[Fogel70]

I don't find that to be the case. Quick shift doesn't help much when it is hunting and can't lock focus.

The advantage of quick-shift is that you can use the AF-button to temporary set the lens to manual focus. (Or you can use AF-button for AF).


I would choose Pentax 100 WR macro just because it is much more compact. It's almost half the size of Tamron 90 Macro.
But as Pentax also has the advantage of WR, quick-shift, build quality, design,... makes it a very easy choice for me.

[Transit]

The pentax will be recognised by the camera if AF adjustment is required

[COULDBE2]

Hi everybody...

Between one used (perfect condition) Pentax D-FA 100mm WR macro and a new Tamron 90mm Macro for the same price, which one would you choose and why?

Thank You

I have the 17-50,28-75,90 and 70-200 and have enjoyed the comfort of their USA 6 year warranty.The quality is not on par with Pentax, however, I have never suffered a quality related problems with any of them after three years and I do use my equipment. Living in southwest Florida my equipment has been thought many afternoon downpours without any water related problem. I purchased all mine new and warranty and price were the deciding factors.I have since added the three Amigos and the Limited's build quality is unmatched IMHO.I sure you will be happy with either one of those fine lens.
Mike

[bdery]

Quick shift doesn't help much when it is hunting and can't lock focus.

I thought this was the case, until I actually tried it. and on the other hand, manual focus on the Tamron is annoyingly complicated.

The pentax will be recognised by the camera if AF adjustment is required

So will the Tamron.

Looks like dissing to me. Very mild and un-obnoxious dissing... but even if he wanted to go with the FA 100 WR, he should have at least thought about it a little bit, don't you think?

I think that's exactly why he wrote this post

Actually, I found myself wishing I had a WR lens when doing water drop photos. For such small drops they splash a long way and get all over the lens.

WR is not just about water too. It will have a resistance to dust.

Indeed. WR protects the whole system on a whole set of situations. And I find myself using the 100 WR on many scenarios apart from macro. For instance, the 100 WR and the 18-55 WR make a killer WR kit when I want to travel light, for instance when camping or hiking.

[normhead]

Actually, I found myself wishing I had a WR lens when doing water drop photos.

Now that I have a few WR lenses, I honestly can't believe what a joy they are. When I first bought them I considered WR to be a gimmick unless on a camera like my Option 10 W a sealed waterproof unit. I've lost lenses to mould in the past. Being able to walk out of the house with K-5 and a WR lens, knowing that I don't have to worry about showers or spray, removes a world of tension. There's a whole level of "this is going to be alright no matter what the weather does" type comfort that doesn't exist with non-WR lenses. I shoot on a lot of days and in places when I wouldn't even consider taking a non-WR lens out of the house.

I got my Tammy for $250 second hand. For a lens of this quality, I feel like I stole a lens. I keep looking out he door waiting for the cops to turn up.