Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-24-2015, 06:44 PM   #1
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 46
D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro, or DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited?

Is there a place to see side by side comparisons of images shot with the D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro and the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited?
I'm looking for a macro lens for my K-5ii, but need help deciding which to buy.
The price on either is excellent right now. It looks like some dealers might run out of the 100mm.

11-24-2015, 06:47 PM   #2
Veteran Member
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Posts: 15,173
The 100 is WR, 35 isn't.
Also 100mm has a longer working distance.
Haven't used either though.
11-24-2015, 06:51 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 402
100mm is my pick. Mainly due to the longer working distance. WR is nice
11-24-2015, 07:12 PM - 1 Like   #4
Closed Account
esrandall's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sumner, WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 965
I've owned both (HD version of the 35) -- and they are both fantastic. It really comes down to what you shoot. Greater working distance for bugs, WR, or if you need a medium telephoto -- then get the 100. The 35 always worked better as a 1:2 for me, as you need to get pretty close for true 1:1. Both have superior build quality, as well. You can't lose.

11-24-2015, 07:39 PM   #5
Pentaxian
Caver's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hungary (ex-pat from Transylvania, Romania)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by esrandall Quote
I've owned both (HD version of the 35) -- and they are both fantastic. It really comes down to what you shoot. Greater working distance for bugs, WR, or if you need a medium telephoto -- then get the 100. The 35 always worked better as a 1:2 for me, as you need to get pretty close for true 1:1. Both have superior build quality, as well. You can't lose.
I could just copy and paste what esrandall said.
The difference is that I own just the SMC version of the 35mm Limited.
All comes down to your needs (in focal length) - both lenses are superb!
11-24-2015, 08:23 PM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,421
I have the 35, my friend has the 100, we compare images, I think you cannot go wrong either as long as you know your purpose...
base on your lens line up as observed on your sig, you do not have a standard prime lens for general use, the 35mm macro would really fill that, a general walk around lens with macro capabilities providing different perspective, but if you really want to shoot macro specially shooting shy critters, set for the 100.

I myself is also tempted to get the 100 since the price is very low this season but I am not that sure if I will use it often as I wanted to.
11-24-2015, 09:02 PM   #7
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Barrhead
Posts: 5
I have the non WR version of the D-FA 100 and it is an amazing lens. I've taken shots of ladybugs clustered in a crack of a rock and amazing portraits with it. It has produced many framed enlargements.

11-24-2015, 09:49 PM - 3 Likes   #8
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,540
I've found that you can only go beyond 1:2 magnification with a tripod or a flash. You will need a tripod to get the best out of either.

35 macro for close ups of big things.
35mm is for close ups, copying work, flowers and does nice portraits with a bit of environmental context. It's best thought of as a normal lens that has no limit on how close you can get to your subject, so it's a nice walk around lens. In practical use, you won't really be using 1:1 except for copying work, because it's hard not to block light to your subject without creating shadows from yourself and the camera.
Probably the best prime lens there is, in my opinion. Sharpness, contrast, colours will amaze you. Not the most useful macro focal length due to the above, however.

100 macro for macros of small things.
100mm would be for bugs and things where you need distance from the subject. Allows much better lighting control also.
11-25-2015, 12:40 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,145
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
35 macro for close ups of big things. 35mm is for close ups, copying work, flowers and does nice portraits with a bit of environmental context. It's best thought of as a normal lens that has no limit on how close you can get to your subject, so it's a nice walk around lens. In practical use, you won't really be using 1:1 except for copying work, because it's hard not to block light to your subject without creating shadows from yourself and the camera. Probably the best prime lens there is, in my opinion. Sharpness, contrast, colours will amaze you. Not the most useful macro focal length due to the above, however. 100 macro for macros of small things. 100mm would be for bugs and things where you need distance from the subject. Allows much better lighting control also.
Yes, it's also my opinion, 100mm and 35mm makes the primary difference, IMO, the difference in rendering is secondary.
11-25-2015, 02:02 AM   #10
Senior Member
Markovo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 149
I have a 100mm WR myself and it is a great lense. The 100mm is D FA and it is FF compatible, but the 35mm isn't, maybe you should keep that in mind too.
11-25-2015, 02:28 AM - 2 Likes   #11
Pentaxian
utak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 928
Most of the key points about focal length, WR, FF are covered above - although personally I'm not sure FF is so relevant, as the new FF will have a crop mode, and 1.5 crop is quite useful for macro, especially for the 35mm

I have the 35mm Macro and a F 100mm macro and a 50mm macro. FWIW I decided to buy the "optical paragon" 35mm first. I use the 35mm for close-up/product/flower shots and as a walk around, and it's a fine lens. I use the 100mm mainly for portraits of people and bugs and some landscapes (the F 100mm is also a very fine lens). But the 50mm is the lens I use the most as a macro, by a country-mile. Optically, my 50mm is also the best for super-sharp close ups. I find the 100mm a little long (on crop), and quite tricky to nail close-ups wide open with such a narrow dof, and the 35mm to me is better value as it has more all-round uses. In fact, I could probably do with something like an A 50 or FA 50 macro alone, and be very happy. The 100mm would be first to go, as it's not used nearly so much.

In terms of comparing images, I've taken quite a few during single in challenges with the three focal lengths, and here are my albums if this helps at all.

35mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157634567317316


50mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157644855700903


100mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157653929567868

Last edited by utak; 11-25-2015 at 02:54 AM.
11-25-2015, 02:37 AM   #12
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,238
We are fortunate to have both superb macro lenses in the Pentax stable. I have both, and will keep both. APS-C will continue to be their native environment.

The 35 is a more versatile lens, produces much less colour fringing, and I really love getting really close. The 100 is awesome for nasty critters though.
11-25-2015, 03:11 AM - 1 Like   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,760
Excuse me if I repeat anything already said. I have both. Love both for different reasons. If you're taking macro shots of bugs or small animals, go with the 100. If you want to take pictures of art or documents, go with the 35. If you're taking macros of non-living things, you can go either.

To me these are specialty lenses and the above is what I primarily use them for.
11-25-2015, 03:18 AM   #14
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,238
QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
Excuse me if I repeat anything already said. I have both. Love both for different reasons. If you're taking macro shots of bugs or small animals, go with the 100. If you want to take pictures of art or documents, go with the 35. If you're taking macros of non-living things, you can go either.

To me these are specialty lenses and the above is what I primarily use them for.
^What he said.
11-25-2015, 04:30 AM - 1 Like   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,862
Here's me entering late but singing the same song. I have the 35 and also 90 & 200 macros. When I did a program on macro for my local camera club, I advised, and would recommend a macro of 90~105mm length as the most versatile FOR MACRO. As noted above, the 35mm macro is best thought of as a excellent normal or standard FL lens that also has macro capability. I use mine in two situations: 1) for museum photography where I might go from a larger-than-life statue to a coin; 2) for some "studio" work where even the 90mm is too long, for example Autumn leaves being arranged on a copy stand set-up. With the 90 I'd need to use the refconverter to frame and focus where I prefer either the viewfinder or a Hoodman magnifier on the LCD screen.

BTW: If you are doing flowers/insects and similar small subjects in the field a 90~105 macro is hands-down superior. Aside from shy bugs that take off just when you get as close as you'd like, you also cannot always get close to flowers in a botanic garden where you cannot step into the beds. Also, the narrower angle of the longer FL makes it easier to control the background. Shorter FL takes in more of the background with the possibility of including more distracting elements and "hot spots" = bright sun peaking through dark foliage that otherwise provides a nice dull background for a well-illuminated (or flash illuminated) flower.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, 100mm f2.8 wr, 35mm, da, f/2.8, f2.8, fa, fa 100mm f2.8, k-mount, macro, pentax lens, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR *SOLD* Thomas Cantwell Sold Items 4 11-12-2015 03:59 PM
Lens choice - Pentax D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro or Tamron SP 90 mm 2.8 Riverlady Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 04-28-2015 01:38 AM
Lens Tournament: FA 77mm F1.8 Limited vs D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Adam Pentax Forums Giveaways 17 10-27-2014 07:19 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D FA Macro 100mm f/2.8 WR bonaprof Sold Items 2 09-05-2014 08:54 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax 100mm 2.8 macro, F, FA, D-FA, D-FA wr rwingsfan Sold Items 2 04-28-2014 01:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top