[brofkand]

I just ordered an FA 100mm Macro, not the DFA version. I really wanted the clamp and focus limiter, and of course the aperture ring (MZ-S shooter).

Since they're all the same, why does it appear that the DFA Macro is so much smaller, and has a smaller filter thread? Also, how is the WR smaller still? I get the removal of clamp and limiter, but surely it couldn't save that much?

I almost gave up on the focus limiter and went with the DFA since I am concerned the FA wouldn't balance too well on the smaller MZ-S.

If anyone has used the MZ-S with the FA 100mm, how did it balance? I'm looking to use it mostly as a portrait lens (hence the want of the limiter), as well as a close-up lens of course.

[glasbak]

Since they're all the same, why does it appear that the DFA Macro is so much smaller, and has a smaller filter thread?

Who says, they are the same ?

Anyway, look at these diagrams, FA100 and DFA 100.
They appear similar, but not the same.
And even if they were the same. looking at the FA100 diagram, you will notice that there is a lot of opportunity to make the lensbarrel smaller.

[kaherdin]

All test values(distortion,resolution,chromatic aberrations,vignetting) are different:


http://www.photozone.de/pentax/130-pentax-smc-fa-100mm-f28-macro-review--lab...report?start=1
Pentax SMC-D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro - Review / Test Report - Analysis

[bwDraco]

The D FA 100mm lens should work on the MZ-S. It's designed to be film-compatible, and because your camera body supports auto-aperture lenses, the absence of an aperture ring is not a problem.

--DragonLord

[brofkand]

Who says, they are the same ?

Anyway, look at these diagrams, FA100 and DFA 100.
They appear similar, but not the same.
And even if they were the same. looking at the FA100 diagram, you will notice that there is a lot of opportunity to make the lensbarrel smaller.

I was conjecturing that they are all the same, since the PentaxForums lens database lists the DFA WR version as optically the same as the DA, and the DA as optically the same as the FA. Perhaps they're not, if the tests are wildly different.

The MZ-S does indeed support auto-aperture, but you're locked out of any mode that allows you to adjust the aperture. Essentially you only get Program or Tv, no Av or M. I use Av mode most often (and Manual when working with strobes/macro, which I plan to use extensively), so I settled on the FA version. The DFA was another possibility, but I really wanted the AF limiter for portraits.

[bwDraco]

The MZ-S does indeed support auto-aperture, but you're locked out of any mode that allows you to adjust the aperture. Essentially you only get Program or Tv, no Av or M.

So the MZ-S has no interface to manually adjust the aperture through the body? That's strange...

--DragonLord

[brofkand]

So the MZ-S has no interface to manually adjust the aperture through the body? That's strange...

--DragonLord

Not exactly strange. Every Pentax lens in the time of the MZ-S had an aperture ring. I think the FA-J lenses didn't arrive until a little bit later, and they were always the cheap lenses anyway.

The PZ-1P does support body aperture control, but the MZ-S doesn't. I quite enjoy using aperture rings, so I don't mind at all. It just locks me out of buying the newer lenses as long as I keep the MZ-S (unless I can live with Tv/P only).

The MZ-S also doesn't support SDM, but again all lenses in the time of the MZ-S used screwdrive AF.