[Na Horuk]

Is there any benefit to having the macro on the 100 if I already have a 50 macro?

Each lens has a certain minimum focus distance. This is measured from the sensor to the in-focus subject (its written on the lens' distance scales). Macro lenses have a really near minimum focus distance, which allows a big magnification. 100mm will achieve 1:1 magnification at a bigger distance than wider lenses. The DA 35mm f2.8 macro, for example, has a really near MFD, so near that the camera is really close to the subject. This can be a problem when taking photos of shy things (animals, insects) or if you cast shadow on the subject. So with the 100mm you will be slightly further away, which has its pros and cons. The other thing is that even though both lenses reach 1:1 magnification, you will have a very different space compression and perspective (Again, due to different focal length and camera placement).

I have the DFA 100mm WR and its a great lens, very sharp and so on. The previous versions have the same optical formula, but different features. This one has WR, QS, and a really nice tight barrel. The older versions are bigger, but have some more features. The older DFA has focus clamp (not super useful, but can be good in some cases. It just locks focus, so it doesn't accidentally get bumped to something else). The older FA and F versions has focus clamp as well as focus limiter. I really miss the focus limiter on the new DFA versions, because it would mean slightly faster AF (you just tell the camera not to bother looking in the macro range, or to look only in the macro range). The older lenses also have an aperture ring, which is very useful if you want to use certain extension tubes, bellows, or older film SLRs. But double check the lens reviews, I may have misremembered some of the features. Check here:
SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Optically all of those Pentax 100mm f2.8 macro lenses are the same, except for maybe improved lens coatings on newer lenses. I doubt any of them would disappoint you in terms of image quality. They are excellent - then again, the DFA 50mm is, as well. They would be very similar in terms of image output, just that 100mm is more telephoto.

Do you need it if you already have the DFA 50mm macro? Dunno, difficult to say. 100mm is noticeably longer. Some people have multiple lenses of the same focal length. It depends on the individual's wishes, needs, and budget.

[bdery]

Is there any benefit to having the macro on the 100 if I already have a 50 macro?

Well, there is little purpose in owning two macro lenses. But it's useful to own both a 50 and a 100mm. What I did at the time, owning a 50 f1,7, a 50 macro and a 135, was to keep the 50 f1,7 and replace the two others with a 100 macro.

I also ended up replacing the 50 with a 40 but that's another story.

[HGMerrill]

I **think** the consensus is DFA 100 mm 2.8 macro is the better choice?

[normhead]

Well, there is little purpose in owning two macro lenses. But it's useful to own both a 50 and a 100mm. What I did at the time, owning a 50 f1,7, a 50 macro and a 135, was to keep the 50 f1,7 and replace the two others with a 100 macro.

I also ended up replacing the 50 with a 40 but that's another story.

I've had many hard looks at the 50 macro, trying to convince myself to replace my 70 macro and 50 1.7 with it. I Just can't find that image that says "you want to replace your 70 macro with this." The longer macros definitely have the "macro look" about them, more than the shorter ones. And the Pentax 100 macro is the lightest of the bunch by a good margin looking at Sigma 105, Sigma 70, Tamron 90 and Pentax 100.

[Nicolas06]

DFA100 macro for me is if you want macro or like the focal length. In my case I found the DFA100 macro focal length to not be that interresting on APSC. Too long for portraiture and many other shoot when a short tele is required. To me something arround 70-80 is perfect. I took FA77. Then there no sense to go 100mm, not enough difference 135mm is more logical.

Macro? I don't care that much of ultimate 1:1 macro with tripod etc and I was more for shooting proxy/small objects with DA35 macro. So you see in the range I have DA35 macro, FA77, F135. To me this is well balanced and match what I like to shoot.

The question to me is what you like to shoot? What focal length do you really like/want? That's something you should think of.

[HGMerrill]

Thanks, all. I shoot mostly pets, portraits and wildlife. Does that help?

I'm pretty disappointed by my kit zooms (DAL 18-55 and 50-200. Shots just don't have that UMPH.

Love the shots from the FA 50 macro. It's pretty much on my camera all the time. I can just crop down if I am too far away and I still get a beautiful, crisp picture.

[Caver]

Thanks, all. I shoot mostly pets, portraits and wildlife. Does that help?

I'm pretty disappointed by my kit zooms (DAL 18-55 and 50-200. Shots just don't have that UMPH.

Love the shots from the FA 50 macro. It's pretty much on my camera all the time. I can just crop down if I am too far away and I still get a beautiful, crisp picture.

I've buyed the D FA 100 Macro WR (used) since a month or so and I didn't had too much time to shoot with it but I am more than happy with it. I have the Pentax 35 mm Macro Limited as well, but they are too different to compare them. The 35 Ltd is more like a "normal" lens regarding of perspective, the 100 Macro is a telephoto lens.

You wrote that you shoot more pets, portraits, wildlife - for these purposes (if you can afford it) I suggest to look for other lenses, like the DA* 50-135 f/2.8 or better the DA* 60-250 f/4.
The convenience and flexibility of a zoom, the longer focal length (in case of the 60-250) and the faster focusing speed (at least comparing to the Macro 100 WR) will serve better your purposes.

---

Last edited by Caver; 04-10-2015 at 04:01 PM. Reason: typo

[Stavri]

It's hard justifying a pricey purchase like the DFA 100 macro or the F/fa 135/2.8. Most people opt for flexibility of zooms, the DA 55-300 is a very good lens for most occasions.

[Caver]

It's hard justifying a pricey purchase like the DFA 100 macro or the F/fa 135/2.8. Most people opt for flexibility of zooms, the DA 55-300 is a very good lens for most occasions.

+1 for the DA55-300!

[W412ren]

Looks to me from your kit that you're after a fast tele.
I have the DFA 100 and the F135.
From a tele point of view the F135 is superb.
However, the 100 FOV isn't much different and image quality IMHO is much better.
The bonus is you get macro thrown in. For those "complaining" about limiters and focus speed that's what quick shift is for.
Sell the 50 macro and invest in the 100 macro. It's worth it.

[UncleVanya]

F and FA 100 have a focus limiter, just a thought.

[Nicolas06]

Thanks, all. I shoot mostly pets, portraits and wildlife. Does that help?

I'm pretty disappointed by my kit zooms (DAL 18-55 and 50-200. Shots just don't have that UMPH.

Love the shots from the FA 50 macro. It's pretty much on my camera all the time. I can just crop down if I am too far away and I still get a beautiful, crisp picture.

Well for portrait a focal length between 40-85mm is best. You have your FA50 macro that fit well within, you should know in the end if this one match what you like for portraiture for example. Do you like the subject distance between you and your subject? Do you like the framing it give you?

A macro lense is well suited to get a portrait with "character", with all the skin features very visible. For classical portraits through you would get better rendering, better result with a non macro lense like a DA50 f/1.8, DA55 f/1.4, DA70 f/2.4 or FA77 f/1.8. They all have less agressive rendering and tend to isolate more the subject either with their larger apperture or longer focal length or both. This is not a big issue, and I think the DFA50 macro is very capable with some post processing to give truely great portraits, but this is to be known.

For Pets I suppose you don't need that long length. The 50mm should be ok... At time you may want something longer and 100/135mm look nice... Sometime you may want a scene from short distance where a wide angle arround 18-25mm would be more interresting.

For "classical" wildlife let say going at the zoo, taking photos of birds and local wildlife in the country, the difficulty is to approach them sufficiantly to get a good shoot wit the subject filling more than a very small place in the photo. Even by cropping you very fast find yourself into the limitations of the gear.

For this, 100-135 is most often too short. It would give acceptable results in a zoo and already many time you would miss to not have 200-250mm at your disposal. In the country this is even worse. For small birds, many go as far as a 500-600mm... And not because they feel is it enough but because it is really too heavy, too expensive to get even longer. Many guys try to put food in "tactical" place where the photo would look good and have a place to hide where they can take the photo from. It can take hours before getting that perfect shoot, or days.

To start on the subject while keeping a reasonable price, the DA55-300, a zoom is good. It would be a good fit for a zoo, more than enough for your pets (outdoor) and it would be already far better for many wildlife subject.

A more expensive version is the 60-250 that basically have trully great sharpness and lot of cropping capability, but then that's not the same price at alll, even through you can honestly find interresting price on a used one. You would always be able later to add the TC 1.4 to it. For me that's one of the best compromize and it come with very high quality.

If you are truely serious, are not affraid of tripod (or at least a monopod), spending hours to get that shoot etc, we enter a different arena for wildlife where the new DFA150-450 or a 150-500 by sigma would be a good option.

In all cases, to me, neither the 100 or 135mm would solve the wildlife or portraiture needs very well. They could help for the pet scenario through to give more reach.

[Na Horuk]

OP, how about buying the DA* 50-135mm? Fast aperture, has the classic portrait range, and goes all the way to 135mm. It is a very beloved lens on these forums and it would compliment your DFA 50mm. It is miles ahead of the kit 50-200mm. But it is a little bigger and a little more expensive. If you buy a used one from a reputable seller, who makes sure it is not damaged and SDM works well, its not a bad choice

The DA 55-300mm is much longer than the DA 50-200mm, but it is not very much better in terms of image quality. It is still a kit lens.

[Kozlok]

A good choice in a long zoom with near-macro abilities is the Tamron 70-200. Massive, but wonderful.

[Nicolas06]

OP, how about buying the DA* 50-135mm? Fast aperture, has the classic portrait range, and goes all the way to 135mm. It is a very beloved lens on these forums and it would compliment your DFA 50mm. It is miles ahead of the kit 50-200mm. But it is a little bigger and a little more expensive. If you buy a used one from a reputable seller, who makes sure it is not damaged and SDM works well, its not a bad choice

I had this one and "a little" is an euphemism.

DA50-200 is 260g and 6.7x7.9cm
DA50-135 is 685g without hood and 7.7x13.6cm.

When you have the 50-135 on your camera, even more with the hood (when you get 20cm long or 8"), everybody think you are a paparasi. It is quite big/heavy in the bag in particular if it is not the only lense you have.

As for price one is 200€, the other is 900€. Used or in a kit the DA50-200 would be quite unexpensive.

On the opposite, a used DFA100 or F135 is like 400g and only 8cm long for the same reach and more sharpness than 50-135 (even through this one is already quite sharp).

The 50-135 would be ok for zoo (not great, I tried it) but not really better than F/FA135 for this. For wildlife in general, it is too short. What it really give is the comfort of a (high quality) zoom particulary usefull for events when it is not that easy to move.

For portraiture, I don't think think it is any better than the DFA50, it give the conveniance/comfort of zoom, something interresting maybe for the pets use case or outdoor portraits. but for best results, a dedicated portrait lens with larger apperture like FA77 f/1.8 or DA50 f/1.8, DA55 f/1.4, sigma 85 f/1.4 would be more interresting.

To me the DA50-135 would make the DFA50 less usefull without helping much to solve the issues. Not more than a DFA100 macro or FA135. but for double the weight/size/price. This is really for when you want to zoom.