New Tamron Macro or used Pentax WR

Chosa · 12-05-2012, 04:12 PM

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

**jatrax** · 12-05-2012, 04:20 PM

Pentax. The resale value will likely hold better. And the Pentax new is about $800 while the Tamron is $499 currently with a $50 rebate. Although per Adam the DFA 100 WR is $639 on deal if you buy now at B&H.

Note I am not making any judgement on the lens quality. The DFA 100 WR is one of my most used lenses and the IQ is stellar, but I've never tried the Tamron so I cannot honestly compare.

But if I can get an $800 lens for $449 even if I don't like it I can resell at a profit. And even at the special $639 price you still come out ahead.

Northern Soul · 12-05-2012, 04:31 PM

Pentax, for the reason jatrax states, and also because of WR

SOldBear · 12-05-2012, 04:37 PM

I'm not gonna tell you which one....

A new Tamron now will become used the day after.

I recently traded a Tamron 90mm + $100 for a Pentax DFA 100mm WR, both used but in excellent condition. I don't regret one bit.

I think just the "quick shift" feature already worth $100.

Dirtistasty2 · 12-05-2012, 04:55 PM

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

**crewl1** · 12-05-2012, 05:30 PM

Pentax. Once you've used a DFA100WR you will understand. It is like a Limited lens in construction, and IQ is excellent.

Chaos_Realm · 12-05-2012, 05:45 PM

I don't have the 100mm WR but I have the Tammy 90 2.8 and a sigma 105 EX macro.
I think the calling card for the DFA100mm WR is the build quality and features.

Pentax Advantages:
Limited like build - some people call it a limited anyway
Weather resistance
Quick shift
Holds price better
49mm Filter - Same as all the DA limited Primes

Tamron Advantages:
Price
Focus Limiter
Aperture Ring

I happened onto my tammy 90mm when I bought a whole kit off a guy... (I was chasing other lenses he had-but he wanted to sell all of it). And to be honest I like the lens a lot, since it is very sharp and light weight compared to my sigma 105 but the build quality is something that I don't like and I much prefer the sigma's colour rendering. Both are certainly not deal breakers given it's price though .

Last edited by Chaos_Realm; 12-05-2012 at 05:53 PM.

Chosa · 12-06-2012, 02:22 AM

Thank You.
Wich is better instead for standars photo? (eg. portrait, not macro)

mbukal · 12-06-2012, 08:19 AM

without thinking Pentax D-FA 100 WR (eg. portrait, not macro) :

normhead · 12-06-2012, 08:28 AM - **1 Like**

I hate seeing someone dissing the Tammy on image quality. That's a losing proposition. Owning a Tammy, I still may go for a 100 WR someday, just for the WR and build quality. And in your position I'd get the 100 WR. But if you do get the Tammy, you won't be disappointed in the IQ. With the cheaper build quality it just doesn't feel right if you're used to Pentax. That's hard to get over. If you go through the top rated lenses on DxO the Tammy 90 is the highest rated prime available on K mount (with the exception of manual focus Samyangs). There's a reason for that. (You can't rate the 100 WR on an FF body so it's rating really suffers, so you can't directly compare.. just saying, the Tamron 90 is no slouch.)

bdery · 12-06-2012, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I hate seeing someone dissing the Tammy on image quality. That's a losing proposition. Owning a Tammy, I still may go for a 100 WR someday, just for the WR and build quality. And in your position I'd get the 100 WR. But if you do get the Tammy, you won't be disappointed in the IQ.

I've never seen anyone dissing the Tamron. I wrote Pentaxforum's comparison review of those two lenses and indeed they are hard to tell apart when looking at pictures. Both are excellent and compare well with one another.

Regarding build quality and features, the Pentax WR is clearly the best choice, as I wrote on the review. At the same price, if the used one is pristine, I wouldn't wait a second.

normhead · 12-06-2012, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Chosa

Thank You.
Wich is better instead for standars photo? (eg. portrait, not macro)

Originally posted by mbukal

without thinking Pentax D-FA 100 WR (eg. portrait, not macro) :

Originally posted by bdery

I've never seen anyone dissing the Tamron. I wrote Pentaxforum's comparison review of those two lenses and indeed they are hard to tell apart when looking at pictures. Both are excellent and compare well with one another.

Regarding build quality and features, the Pentax WR is clearly the best choice, as I wrote on the review. At the same price, if the used one is pristine, I wouldn't wait a second.

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?

SOldBear · 12-06-2012, 11:26 AM

This should also be counted as "dissing":

Originally posted by SOldBear

I recently traded a Tamron 90mm + $100 for a Pentax DFA 100mm WR, both used but in excellent condition. I don't regret one bit.

I think just the "quick shift" feature already worth $100.

oxidized · 12-06-2012, 12:26 PM

Personally, I think pretty much all 100ish macro lens tend to be very similar in optical quality, and really amazing at that. Also keep in mind, if you intend to use it as designed (macro) the autofocus probably will not matter either (which means you could even consider some older manual focus lens like the lester dine/kiron/vivitar 105 2.5/2.8 - probably better built quality than either of those). Anyways, the question is what is the built quality worth to you? You will be using manual focus a lot so how do the focus rings of each lens compare (smoothness and throw)? What is the WR worth to you? I think WR is awesome for lens like the DA 50-135, but on a macro lens? Im having trouble imagining a situation when I would go out and shoot flowers/bugs when it is actually raining or snowing...

Chaos_Realm · 12-06-2012, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by oxidized

Personally, I think pretty much all 100ish macro lens tend to be very similar in optical quality, and really amazing at that. Also keep in mind, if you intend to use it as designed (macro) the autofocus probably will not matter either (which means you could even consider some older manual focus lens like the lester dine/kiron/vivitar 105 2.5/2.8 - probably better built quality than either of those). Anyways, the question is what is the built quality worth to you? You will be using manual focus a lot so how do the focus rings of each lens compare (smoothness and throw)? What is the WR worth to you? I think WR is awesome for lens like the DA 50-135, but on a macro lens? Im having trouble imagining a situation when I would go out and shoot flowers/bugs when it is actually raining or snowing...

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.

12-05-2012, 04:12 PM	#1
Chosa Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 29	New Tamron Macro or used Pentax WR 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

12-06-2012, 08:28 AM - 1 Like	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I hate seeing someone dissing the Tammy on image quality. That's a losing proposition. Owning a Tammy, I still may go for a 100 WR someday, just for the WR and build quality. And in your position I'd get the 100 WR. But if you do get the Tammy, you won't be disappointed in the IQ. With the cheaper build quality it just doesn't feel right if you're used to Pentax. That's hard to get over. If you go through the top rated lenses on DxO the Tammy 90 is the highest rated prime available on K mount (with the exception of manual focus Samyangs). There's a reason for that. (You can't rate the 100 WR on an FF body so it's rating really suffers, so you can't directly compare.. just saying, the Tamron 90 is no slouch.) Last edited by normhead; 12-06-2012 at 08:35 AM.

12-06-2012, 12:26 PM	#14
oxidized Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: USA - Delaware Photos: Albums Posts: 435	Personally, I think pretty much all 100ish macro lens tend to be very similar in optical quality, and really amazing at that. Also keep in mind, if you intend to use it as designed (macro) the autofocus probably will not matter either (which means you could even consider some older manual focus lens like the lester dine/kiron/vivitar 105 2.5/2.8 - probably better built quality than either of those). Anyways, the question is what is the built quality worth to you? You will be using manual focus a lot so how do the focus rings of each lens compare (smoothness and throw)? What is the WR worth to you? I think WR is awesome for lens like the DA 50-135, but on a macro lens? Im having trouble imagining a situation when I would go out and shoot flowers/bugs when it is actually raining or snowing... Last edited by oxidized; 12-06-2012 at 03:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Keep FA 50 Macro or Trade for DFA 100 WR Macro	Jdurock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	10-16-2012 01:13 PM
Tamron 90mm vs Pentax D-FA 100mm WR Macro	Adam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	03-28-2012 06:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro WR Like New	eleventhirteen83	Sold Items	2	11-04-2011 06:07 AM
Tamron 90mm or Pentax 100mm WR?	ravilee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	55	06-17-2011 10:14 AM
old 100 macro or new WR ?	john mood	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	01-19-2011 07:56 PM

12-05-2012, 04:20 PM	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Pentax. The resale value will likely hold better. And the Pentax new is about $800 while the Tamron is $499 currently with a $50 rebate. Although per Adam the DFA 100 WR is $639 on deal if you buy now at B&H. Note I am not making any judgement on the lens quality. The DFA 100 WR is one of my most used lenses and the IQ is stellar, but I've never tried the Tamron so I cannot honestly compare. But if I can get an $800 lens for $449 even if I don't like it I can resell at a profit. And even at the special $639 price you still come out ahead.

12-05-2012, 04:31 PM	#3
Northern Soul Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The North of England Photos: Albums Posts: 494	Pentax, for the reason jatrax states, and also because of WR

12-05-2012, 04:37 PM	#4
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	I'm not gonna tell you which one.... A new Tamron now will become used the day after. I recently traded a Tamron 90mm + $100 for a Pentax DFA 100mm WR, both used but in excellent condition. I don't regret one bit. I think just the "quick shift" feature already worth $100.

12-05-2012, 04:55 PM	#5
Dirtistasty2 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 325	For macros, the quick shift can really be handy, more so than a focus limiter.

12-05-2012, 05:30 PM	#6
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Pentax. Once you've used a DFA100WR you will understand. It is like a Limited lens in construction, and IQ is excellent.

12-05-2012, 05:45 PM	#7
Chaos_Realm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,251	I don't have the 100mm WR but I have the Tammy 90 2.8 and a sigma 105 EX macro. I think the calling card for the DFA100mm WR is the build quality and features. Pentax Advantages: Limited like build - some people call it a limited anyway Weather resistance Quick shift Holds price better 49mm Filter - Same as all the DA limited Primes Tamron Advantages: Price Focus Limiter Aperture Ring I happened onto my tammy 90mm when I bought a whole kit off a guy... (I was chasing other lenses he had-but he wanted to sell all of it). And to be honest I like the lens a lot, since it is very sharp and light weight compared to my sigma 105 but the build quality is something that I don't like and I much prefer the sigma's colour rendering. Both are certainly not deal breakers given it's price though . Last edited by Chaos_Realm; 12-05-2012 at 05:53 PM.

12-06-2012, 02:22 AM	#8
Chosa Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 29 Original Poster	Thank You. Wich is better instead for standars photo? (eg. portrait, not macro)

12-06-2012, 08:19 AM	#9
mbukal Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: zagreb Posts: 668	without thinking Pentax D-FA 100 WR (eg. portrait, not macro) :

12-06-2012, 11:12 AM	#11
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by normhead I hate seeing someone dissing the Tammy on image quality. That's a losing proposition. Owning a Tammy, I still may go for a 100 WR someday, just for the WR and build quality. And in your position I'd get the 100 WR. But if you do get the Tammy, you won't be disappointed in the IQ. I've never seen anyone dissing the Tamron. I wrote Pentaxforum's comparison review of those two lenses and indeed they are hard to tell apart when looking at pictures. Both are excellent and compare well with one another. Regarding build quality and features, the Pentax WR is clearly the best choice, as I wrote on the review. At the same price, if the used one is pristine, I wouldn't wait a second.

12-06-2012, 11:19 AM	#12
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Chosa Thank You. Wich is better instead for standars photo? (eg. portrait, not macro) Originally posted by mbukal without thinking Pentax D-FA 100 WR (eg. portrait, not macro) : Originally posted by bdery I've never seen anyone dissing the Tamron. I wrote Pentaxforum's comparison review of those two lenses and indeed they are hard to tell apart when looking at pictures. Both are excellent and compare well with one another. Regarding build quality and features, the Pentax WR is clearly the best choice, as I wrote on the review. At the same price, if the used one is pristine, I wouldn't wait a second. 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?

12-06-2012, 11:26 AM	#13
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	This should also be counted as "dissing": Originally posted by SOldBear I recently traded a Tamron 90mm + $100 for a Pentax DFA 100mm WR, both used but in excellent condition. I don't regret one bit. I think just the "quick shift" feature already worth $100.

12-06-2012, 04:26 PM	#15
Chaos_Realm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,251	Originally posted by oxidized Personally, I think pretty much all 100ish macro lens tend to be very similar in optical quality, and really amazing at that. Also keep in mind, if you intend to use it as designed (macro) the autofocus probably will not matter either (which means you could even consider some older manual focus lens like the lester dine/kiron/vivitar 105 2.5/2.8 - probably better built quality than either of those). Anyways, the question is what is the built quality worth to you? You will be using manual focus a lot so how do the focus rings of each lens compare (smoothness and throw)? What is the WR worth to you? I think WR is awesome for lens like the DA 50-135, but on a macro lens? Im having trouble imagining a situation when I would go out and shoot flowers/bugs when it is actually raining or snowing... 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.