[Shanti]

Hi anyone compare these 2 lenses? need mostly for wildlife/nature portraits,but macro would be a big plus...if I use ext rings on the DA70 would I get the same results? Sigma is much cheaper as well,but alot heavier I see...is the AF on Sigma good enough for moving subjects,reviews seem a bit mixed on that..thanks

[robjmitchell]

The AF on the sigma is helped by using the focus limiter. Both are fantastic lenses, I slightly preferred the rendering of the sigma but its splitting hairs. The sigma is optically about as perfect as you get but is sure does weigh a ton!

[vonBaloney]

The Sigma is awesome but for general usage I'd go with the the DA70. (Even though I have the Sigma and not the DA70.) Lighter, smaller, faster focusing (it has got to be) -- unless you think you are going to do heavy macros or you think that full-frame is coming soon. (Sigma is a full-frame lens.) I do love my Sigma though. Can't go wrong either way, but usability goes to the DA70 easily...

[Shamwow]

Hi anyone compare these 2 lenses? need mostly for wildlife/nature portraits,but macro would be a big plus...if I use ext rings on the DA70 would I get the same results? Sigma is much cheaper as well,but alot heavier I see...is the AF on Sigma good enough for moving subjects,reviews seem a bit mixed on that..thanks

I have the DA70 and can highly recommend it, but there is no aperture ring. I don't believe you will be able to stop the lens down with an extension tube without electrical contacts.

[baro-nite]

No aperture ring on the Sigma either, but of course it is a 1:1 macro lens so no need for extra extension unless you want ultra-high magnification. As has been pointed out it is a relatively large and heavy lens. Also, the focus ring turns in the opposite direction from Pentax lenses, and there's no quick shift. It's a superb macro lens but IMO not so special as you approach infinity focus. I don't have experience with the DA70, but one thing to bear in mind about extension tubes is that you end up with a very small range of focus distance. If you go with the DA70 you might consider a Raynox or other close-up filter instead of tubes. You still end up with a pretty small range of focus distance, but it's more convenient than tubes because it is easier and quicker to change, and with no loss of camera function.

When you say "wildlife/nature portraits" I'm not sure if you mean all three subjects, or if you mean portraits of wildlife and other "nature" subjects. A macro lens for (human) portraiture is not everyone's cup of tea, but for wildlife where 70mm is close enough for a portrait, a super-sharp lens is just what you want.

[robjmitchell]

Have you considered longer lenses? The pentax 100/2.8 macro WR is a great lens and its smaller size means you can use the onboard flash without shadow (on k7) unlike the sigma 70. No focus limiter though although weather resistant as well. Also the 55-300 is finally being released in a weather resistant form.

[normhead]

I got the 70 macro, specifically for the macro after my wife started using the 90 macro. I find once your wife starts carrying a lens in her bag, it may as well be in Manilla. It's a very sharp lens, apart from the weight I love it, and it's also a great portrait lens for APS-c.

The big reason for not buying the 70 for me is, it's not macro. The big reason not to buy the 70 macro is it's size. Honestly. I had to buy a new case to attach to my belt, bigger than the one I use for my 18-135. And it's heavy compared to the Pentax 70 or 77.

By the way my wife uses the Tamron 90 which is by far the best buy of the bunch, with a Pentax 1.7 TC for even more spectacular results. The Tamron 90 and a TC gives you150mm, great for wildlife in a very small lightweight easy to carry package. The Tamron is lighter, than the other macros, a really nice size to pack and carry and just as good optically. That would be my choice. I went with the Sigma because we already have the Tamron in the family, my wife uses it, and I wanted to fill the gap between our 50 1.8 and the Tamron 90 with a high quality prime.

Starting all over from scratch I'd probably give the Sigma 105 macro a look as well.

The 90 has a limiter and can quickly be disengaged for manual focus.

[mysterick]

I have both. The Sigma is a fine lens that renders good, high contrast images. IQ is excellent. The DA70 is much more manageable on the road (because of size) and better (to me) for use in people images; it has a softer (not soft) quality to it. I like the sigma for still life, detail images.

[normhead]

I have both. The Sigma is a fine lens that renders good, high contrast images. IQ is excellent. The DA70 is much more manageable on the road (because of size) and better (to me) for use in people images; it has a softer (not soft) quality to it. I like the sigma for still life, detail images.

So in old school terms, the 70 is a portrait lens, the 70 macro is a technical lens. The old geezer way of explaining it.

[Shanti]

No aperture ring on the Sigma either, but of course it is a 1:1 macro lens so no need for extra extension unless you want ultra-high magnification. As has been pointed out it is a relatively large and heavy lens. Also, the focus ring turns in the opposite direction from Pentax lenses, and there's no quick shift. It's a superb macro lens but IMO not so special as you approach infinity focus. I don't have experience with the DA70, but one thing to bear in mind about extension tubes is that you end up with a very small range of focus distance. If you go with the DA70 you might consider a Raynox or other close-up filter instead of tubes. You still end up with a pretty small range of focus distance, but it's more convenient than tubes because it is easier and quicker to change, and with no loss of camera function.

When you say "wildlife/nature portraits" I'm not sure if you mean all three subjects, or if you mean portraits of wildlife and other "nature" subjects. A macro lens for (human) portraiture is not everyone's cup of tea, but for wildlife where 70mm is close enough for a portrait, a super-sharp lens is just what you want.

Mostly animals & plants not humans..so sharpness is needed...its hard as no chance to see/test any of these before I buy..only online shops have Pentax here

[Shanti]

I got the 70 macro, specifically for the macro after my wife started using the 90 macro. I find once your wife starts carrying a lens in her bag, it may as well be in Manilla. It's a very sharp lens, apart from the weight I love it, and it's also a great portrait lens for APS-c.

The big reason for not buying the 70 for me is, it's not macro. The big reason not to buy the 70 macro is it's size. Honestly. I had to buy a new case to attach to my belt, bigger than the one I use for my 18-135. And it's heavy compared to the Pentax 70 or 77.

By the way my wife uses the Tamron 90 which is by far the best buy of the bunch, with a Pentax 1.7 TC for even more spectacular results. The Tamron 90 and a TC gives you150mm, great for wildlife in a very small lightweight easy to carry package. The Tamron is lighter, than the other macros, a really nice size to pack and carry and just as good optically. That would be my choice. I went with the Sigma because we already have the Tamron in the family, my wife uses it, and I wanted to fill the gap between our 50 1.8 and the Tamron 90 with a high quality prime.

Starting all over from scratch I'd probably give the Sigma 105 macro a look as well.

The 90 has a limiter and can quickly be disengaged for manual focus.

is the Tamron 90 good for infinity shots as well? have the 1.7TC, and DA300*..been thinking either DA50-135, Tam or Sig 70-200 but heavier than the 300!! too bad no 180 2.8 for Pentax, have 135 3.5 prime as well but not so good & need AF

[normhead]

is the Tamron 90 good for infinity shots as well? have the 1.7TC, and DA300*..been thinking either DA50-135, Tam or Sig 70-200 but heavier than the 300!! too bad no 180 2.8 for Pentax, have 135 3.5 prime as well but not so good & need AF

I haven't found a weakness yet for the Tamron 90 macro apart from the thing with all macros, slow to focus if you don't have the limiter set if you miss a focus point, but the 70 is the same for that.. The 90 is great at infinity, and because of its sharpness you get a better image with the TC than you might expect. The SIg 70-200 is reputed to be the fastest focusing, fast sports type lens, but now you're talking to heavy to carry comfortably, even for a 20 minute walk. My wife has taken almost 4000 images with this lens just this year.

Here's a few pages of examples.

Tammy-90-macro_plus-Pentax-1-7_TC Photos by Norm_Head | Photobucket

Tamron90 Photos by Norm_Head | Photobucket

[Shanti]

I haven't found a weakness yet for the Tamron 90 macro apart from the thing with all macros, slow to focus if you don't have the limiter set if you miss a focus point, but the 70 is the same for that.. The 90 is great at infinity, and because of its sharpness you get a better image with the TC than you might expect. The SIg 70-200 is reputed to be the fastest focusing, fast sports type lens, but now you're talking to heavy to carry comfortably, even for a 20 minute walk. My wife has taken almost 4000 images with this lens just this year.

Here's a few pages of examples.

Tammy-90-macro_plus-Pentax-1-7_TC Photos by Norm_Head | Photobucket

Tamron90 Photos by Norm_Head | Photobucket

nice shots there...really like the 2 birds facing off..that's the subject matter I plan to use it for,looks perfect and 1/2 price to the DA70 so its a no brainer pretty much....then just need the 12-24 to make my setup complete(for now..)

[robjmitchell]

Tamron 90 sounds good. If you find it a bit long for indoor portraits at times then just pick up a cheap fast 50 and you will be fine.

[Brangdon]

You might also consider the Pentax 70mm Ltd with a Raynox DCR-150 addition for macro.

I'm considering it, anyway. I actually have the 100mm WR Macro, but the 70mm Ltd is lighter.